44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 12, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/12/23 6:13:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I guess my biggest concern is what other tactics the Conservative have lined up. We know from last week that they said they would do whatever they could to prevent the budget from going through. Typically speaking, and I really hope this is not the case with such a sensitive and important issue like this, when the opposition puts forward a concurrence motion, it is done under the guise of trying to delay the House and the work that the House has to do.
I really hope that is not the case, and I take it at face value that it is not the reason the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan brought it forward. However, knowing that we all agree with it, I also really hope that we can vote on it quickly and then get back to the regular business of the House.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this motion deals with the listing of a terrorist organization, the Taliban, and highlights that, in the context of recognizing the need for special provisions to bring in humanitarian assistance, we also need to be firm in denouncing the Taliban. It is saying that, while we want to find ways of getting humanitarian assistance in, the Taliban needs to continue to be a listed terrorist organization.
At the same time, there are other organizations that the House has called on the government to list that it has not listed, and I am thinking particularly of the IRGC. It has been five years since the House voted to list the IRGC. The passage of Bill C-41 may, from the perspective of the government, remove a potential impediment. Is the government open to now moving forward with listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization, as it voted to do five years ago?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:15:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I read out the entire motion in my speech. I am not sure if the member heard it.
I am fully aware of what it is. It is a report that really only contains two sentences. I support it, and I understand that all committee members support it. I understand that this was one of the ways that Conservatives were able to come around to supporting the bill. That is important. The committee did its work and worked collaboratively together to find common ground where everybody could accept what the committee was doing and report it back.
The member wants me to comment on some hypotheticals he is proposing. I will wait for the government and those who are following up on this and who are responsible to make the various recommendations. We will then make our decisions at that point.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am here to speak on the concurrence report with respect to the Taliban.
This afternoon I was very pleased to see Bill C-41 pass in this House. It is a very important bill, one that many people have been working on for several months. Most notably, it is something that the justice committee has been working on for the last several weeks.
I believe Bill C-41 is a very important step toward ensuring that those in Afghanistan are supported through the many incredible aid agencies that work in the region, including organizations that have an international span as well as those that are regional. I think it is an important step toward supporting Afghanistan in this moment.
With respect to the Taliban, I think it is very clear that it is an organization that offends many aspects of human rights. I can enumerate the various challenges the Taliban poses, not just to the people of Afghanistan but also to the world. It is an organization that is brutal in its force. It is one that has summarily killed so many people. It is one that limits access to education for women. It certainly limits dissent of any sort, and by no means is it democratic. For it to form government in Afghanistan is deeply troubling and deeply problematic.
The reasons that the Taliban are there today are historical. In part, it is because the west just left overnight. I think history will judge that as a failure of the western world. In many ways, we can go back in history and say that the region of Afghanistan is one that has been impacted by colonialism over the centuries. In the last 50 or 60 years, it has been impacted by the Cold War. In this particular case, the departure of the United States in August 2021 certainly enabled the Taliban to take hold of Afghanistan and cause it to regress back into an autocratic state that violates the human rights of its citizens.
Canada's response, it is fair to say, has been quite challenging, in part because of the complexity of the government structure in Afghanistan, which limited our ability to bring people out, but I am very pleased to see that the number of Afghans who have been resettled in Canada over time is in excess of 35,000 people. I think it is a remarkable number, given that this is probably the second-highest number of resettlements we have ever done, the first one being the Syrians right after we formed government in 2015.
I would say Canada is among the top countries in the world to resettle so many Afghans. Of course, there are good reasons for that. Apart from the presence of many family members here and the needs of those Afghans who were directly supporting the Government of Canada, there is a humanitarian reason that this type of resettlement is so critical. Resettling 35,000 within a period of under two years is a remarkable achievement. It may not seem fair to those who may be languishing in different parts of the world or those who are struggling to get out and rightfully should be able to come to Canada. It may seem frustrating that we took two years to do that.
I can give some examples. This morning, I had a call with my office. We do a weekly meeting at 9:00 a.m. every Monday to talk about casework. One of the cases approved today was a resettlement of a group of five Tamil refugees. They had been in India for the last 13 years. This application took 13 years to process. That is the nature of many cases in the resettlement process, although Canada is the number one resettlement country in the world for refugees.
Notwithstanding that, it was a 13-year process, and we can understand how difficult it is for people like that to resettle, especially those who are fleeing conflict. While the two-year mark may seem long, in the broader sense, it is important for Canada and our government to achieve. There is no doubt that we will achieve the 40,000 mark as set out by the Minister of Immigration, as he enumerated a number of different times. We have seen people arrive at our airports and planes full of Afghan refugees who have come here and are settled. I have met many over the last two years and I have met family members of my friends who have come here as part of the resettlement. It is fair to say that Canada is doing its part and is doing its part disproportionate to our involvement in Afghanistan. It is the right thing to do, and I certainly support the government's efforts. I want to reiterate that I am deeply offended by the Taliban and all that it stands for.
Having said all of this, this is a concurrence motion that forms part of a report from the justice and human rights committee, one that is five lines and is quite simple. It basically denounces the Taliban regime, the Taliban administration and the Taliban itself. As such, we generally have unanimous consent from all parties on this language that was passed by committee. I certainly hope it does not take us a full four hours to have the debate here. I would suggest at this point that we go on to what was in the Order Paper and debate Bill C-40.
If I may, I will highlight why it is so important that Bill C-40 be debated and passed. It is a priority bill for the government. Over the past 30 years or so, it is an issue that has offended Canadians, which is that those who may be wrongfully convicted are spending time in jail and unfortunately have no recourse, or the recourse that is available through the process of ministerial relief is quite arduous. We know the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has outlined the frustration he has faced during his tenure as minister in reviewing those cases.
It is important that we debate this bill and ensure the justice and fairness for which Canada is known and ought to be known. One of the reasons that people of all backgrounds come to Canada would be reiterated through the passage of this bill and would ensure that there is an outlet available for people to seek redress when they are wrongfully convicted. This is not about opening the doors—
1098 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:25:05 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:25:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The interpretation is not working.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:25:10 p.m.
- Watch
Is it working?
It is working now. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let me conclude by saying that it is quite important for this House to debate Bill C-40. I know the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada started the debate today. We would have preferred constructive debate from the Conservatives, which we saw at the outset. I know that both the Bloc and the NDP would also constructively contribute to this very important discussion. It is one I believe we have consensus on and can build on to better the bill as we move it forward. It is paramount that those who are languishing in prisons right now who may be wrongfully convicted have the possibility of a review process that would enable them to have an independent arbiter who can speak to the original case itself.
With that, with the disappointment I expressed for the delay, I want to reiterate my support for this motion and also ask that we move to other business at some point, as soon as possible.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:27:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments, but I do think this is an important debate. Of course, the House will be continuing debate until midnight, so the government will have an opportunity to bring forward Government Orders. This is a motion that is important to discuss.
I want to ask the member about testimony we heard from representatives of the National Resistance Front. There are various opposition groups and pro-democracy groups that are organizing right now and are looking for support. They are also hoping and expecting that the Taliban may collapse sooner than people expect.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could share the government's position on engaging with and supporting these various opposition groups.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:28:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can assure the member that our government will always support democratic movements and will always support democracies around the world and those that are emerging as democracies.
I think Canada is known for this over the modern history of Canadian foreign diplomacy. It has been a paramount component of our foreign policy. I know that in many countries, as we speak, we are supporting the voices of dissent and the voices of democracy that continue to inspire us and that continue to inspire the world. We know that democracy is the way towards the future and we will continue to support those voices.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed working with my hon. colleague on a number of different things and I want to echo his concerns. I was prepared to debate Bill C-40 today. I think it is very important legislation and something that we really should be discussing at this point.
I also want to go back to some of the discussions the member brought forward with regard to Bill C-41. The member would know that I did not vote in support of this bill for the simple reason that I find that there are some real challenges to this legislation. As much as we were able to work together with members of his party and members of other parties to fix parts of this bill, there are still some really outstanding challenges within the bill that I think make it difficult for civil society organizations and non-profit organizations to work within. It is overly bureaucratic, of course, and has some big challenges on definitions.
One of my big concerns is around the potential for politicization, knowing that a future government could use this legislation to act punitively towards the charitable sector and the international development sector. Does the member have those same concerns? Would he like to comment on that?
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her thoughtful comments.
I can assure the member that this bill has come forward after extensive consultation with and support from the sector that works in Afghanistan and internationally. I am very content that we are going in the right direction. Of course, with every bill that we pass, there are always questions. None is perfect. Bill C-41 is a good compromise that has the broad support of all the parties in this House.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:31:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1,446 to 1,457.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:31:39 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the motion is deemed adopted.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:33:13 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That:
(a) the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, laid upon the table on June 8, 2023 (Sessional Paper No. 8525-441-30) be adopted and the said standing orders shall come into force on June 24, 2023, or upon the adoption of this order, whichever is later;
(b) the provisional changes made to Standing Orders 104, 108 and 114, adopted on December 2, 2021, shall remain in effect for the duration of the 44th Parliament;
(c) the order made on April 6, 2022, concerning witnesses appearing before any committee be rescinded as of the coming into force date of the said amendments to the Standing Orders; and
(d) the Clerk of the House be authorized to make necessary editorial and consequential alterations to the Standing Orders.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to speak to this very important series of changes to the Standing Orders. Let me start by thanking members of the procedure and House affairs committee for their excellent work. The changes that are before the House are representative of the recommendations from the procedure and House affairs committee, and would amend our Standing Orders.
Maybe I will go back, if I could, to where this came from. March of 2020 was the beginning of the pandemic. It signalled the start of a period of time none of us could have imagined. At that moment in time, the House was confronted with an enormous challenge: the realization that we were going to have to do our work at a distance, remotely. I was the whip at that point in time, and I recall asking for the pandemic plan, to see what exactly was put in place as a provision if the House needed to operate at a distance. Of course, there was no plan. Like so many aspects of what we faced in the pandemic, it had to be invented.
I want to start my comments by thanking the House leaders and whips of the other parties, and in some cases there have been several House leaders and whips as they have changed roles. At the beginning of that process, they came together and found a way to get on the same page and imagine a new way of doing business. It was quite remarkable, because it was done unanimously. It was an arduous process, but we worked to put aside partisan differences and find a new way to do business.
That leads me to a second and equally important thank you, which is to all of those within the House administration who were responsible for helping us author these changes and for finding the technological means to ensure that Canada's Parliament could continue to do its work even as a pandemic ravaged our country, which meant that we were forced to stay at home.
Maybe I will talk at first about what has not—
485 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:35:21 p.m.
- Watch
There is a point of order from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:35:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the matter of the consultation requirements, the House leader said that House leaders were consulted. He did not consult with our caucus in the drafting of this at all. He consulted with the NDP maybe—
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:35:34 p.m.
- Watch
This is a point of debate. The government House leader does not have to indicate whom he consulted with.
The hon. government House leader.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:35:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to say that I am talking about March of 2020. At that moment in time, the whips and the House leaders for the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc all joined together to have a conversation about how we were going to do the business of this country. I thought that maybe for a moment we could put the partisan swords down and talk about what we did in the pandemic and how we came together in that dark moment, because I think it was a proud moment for Parliament. It was a moment when we set aside our differences, saw the challenge that was in front of this country, understood the need to be able to do our work as Parliament, and envisioned a way of doing that business totally differently. I am surprised at the member opposite; because he is a long-standing member, he would remember that his party absolutely agreed at that point in time that we had to work at a distance, that it was impossible to be in the chamber, and that it was not safe, unfortunately, to be in public spaces.
What ensued thereafter was a debate; there were disagreements, and there continue to be some disagreements, about the use of these provisions, and I will speak to that. However, I think it is important that the work that was done was done on the basis of unanimity and in collaboration, to find a way through that dark hour. That it is why I started my comments by rooting them in this fact. That is why I thank all parties for the work they did in that difficult moment. I think it is an important starting point, and it is important for us to remember that the provisions we are talking about today were born from that process of co-operation.
I would like to speak about a couple of the points that may have prompted the member to rise on his point of order. There are a number of points that have been made in criticism of the hybrid system, so I am going to start with those. Then I am going to talk about many of the advantages I feel it does confer.
One of the arguments made is that members of Parliament will not show up, that we are going to see Ottawa be empty. Of course, we have had these provisions for almost three years, and at the height of the public health emergency, that was true; it was impossible for members of Parliament to show up, but thereafter, we have seen the House populated as it always has been. We recognize in this place that every member is honourable, and hon. members want to be here. They want to do the work of this country, and they have done it. The hybrid provisions allow for greater flexibility, which I will speak to, but the work of Parliament has continued. Committees have met. The House has met. The work of Parliament has been conducted, and it has been conducted very well, I might add.
There are a few issues around interpretation. It is essential that the debates are held here in both official languages, and the quality of interpretation is very important.
In committee, with or without the hybrid system, interpretation is necessary. For the witnesses who appear in committee, access to the interpretation service is essential. That is why the issue of interpretation is important with or without the hybrid system. Interpretation is now available remotely, outside the House, and it is very important that we continue to ensure the quality of interpretation and the health of the interpreters.
With respect to holding the government to account, over the last three years, I do not think we could have imagined a time that has been more challenged and a country that has been seeing the rise of very unfortunate trends in the social media space that are incredibly aggressive and, sadly, sometimes amplified by the opposition, particularly by the Conservatives. We have had very vigorous debate, and that debate is appropriate. The ability of the opposition parties has been in no way curtailed by the use of hybrid provisions. Accountability has been evident and in full force. Not much has changed with the use of the hybrid system, in terms of what was lost, but I think we need to take a moment to think about what was gained and what was changed for this place in the experience we have had over these last three years. I will start, frankly, with my own errors, in looking back over my career.
I was elected nearly 20 years ago, as next year it will have been 20 years since I was given the opportunity to take my seat in Parliament for the first time. I came a bit earlier than I might have intended. When I was 29, a new riding was created in my community. It was always my dream to serve my community in Parliament; it was a dream I had held since I was 12 years old. This has been a great passion in my life. I believed I could hold those responsibilities and the responsibilities of being a father and the responsibilities of my family, and hold them intact and find balance. There are a lot of reasons why I did not get that right and that I allowed too much of my life to be taken over by this job and the priorities of it.
This is not a job in a normal sense; it is an incredible calling and privilege. We meet all the people in our constituencies and we want to serve them well. We hear wrongs that are happening in the country and we want to stand up for them. However, without any of the provisions that exist in the hybrid system, there were many moments that were extremely important in the life of my family for which I was not able to be there, which I sincerely regret. I want to make sure we do not do that again and that, in the key and most important moments in members' lives, they are able to be there for their families, for the people they love and for their friends, because those moments are essential. I will speak to that in a number of different ways, but we have to remember the most important reason that is true, which is that this is the House of common people. We are supposed to understand common people, and common people spend time with their families. Common people make space for important life events for their families. Common people take jobs that respect their families and the obligations towards their families, and it is high time that Parliament were a place that respects those values.
I want us to think not just about the justice that is done to a family. Let us think also about what happens when we attend that really important moment in our family's life or in the life of somebody who is very close to us. First, when we get an opportunity to be at the graduation of a child, or when we get an opportunity to be at the bedside of somebody we love, it changes how we see issues. When we get to be there in those really critical moments, it reminds us of why we do the job, what we care about, and, frankly, how the people facing those issues are also feeling. It is just as important to have time away from the work we do as it is to be in the work we do, so we can get the context and we can remember what we are debating. So often it is said that we in Ottawa live in a bubble. If we do not have the opportunity to connect and to be with those whom we love, and be in the real world, then it is no wonder we are in a bubble.
It also reminds us of what is real and important, and I am sure we will all have had this experience. It is one of the reasons that weeks in the constituency are so important. When I take a moment to step out of this place and the debates we are having, sometimes debates that I think are really big and important, I get home to friends and family and they say, “What are you talking about? That is not on our minds. You are completely missing it.” Sometimes there is something small that we may not be seeing here or feeling in the same kind of way, but when we go home to our constituencies and are with our friends and family, they remind us how important it is.
However, there are two other things that I think are even more important than all of that. One is energy. Members can see I have a lot of vigour today. That vigour comes from a very direct place; it comes from having my needs met. Although on the weekend I had a lot of events, I also took really important time with people I love. That reinforces me. It changes the person who I am here.
This leads me to my last point about spending time in those key moments, which is that when someone has the opportunity to be there in moments that are really important and regenerative to them, they make better decisions. All the worst decisions I have ever made in my life, and I have made some bad choices, have come from a place of deprivation, from not taking care of my needs. They have come from extending myself too far and from losing that sense of what the priorities are. Therefore, taking care of those things is no minor thing.
Let us be really honest. The problem we have today in Parliament is not that MPs are taking too much time off or are going away to relax and rest. I was whip for over three years. I can tell members that this is not reflective of the life of a member of Parliament. The life of somebody who decides to serve, as every person in the House or any person who has served and is listening to this would know to be true, is one of tremendous service and sacrifice.
When we are not here serving in the House, we are asked to be in a committee. When we are not in a committee, we are asked to be at a reception or a meeting with stakeholders, or we are returning constituent calls. When we get to our ridings, we are asked to serve on behalf of our constituents at events and to represent them, meet them, hear their issues, hear the things that are bothering them and be there for their cases.
We are asked to do things for our party: to raise money, organize and make sure we are ready for the next election, that our riding associations are well taken care of and that we have called all of the volunteers and people who have been helping out at community events and stakeholder events. Heck, when we go into Shoppers Drug Mart sick at midnight, we are talking about an immigration case. That is the life of a member of Parliament. That is not a Liberal member of Parliament. That is not a Conservative member of Parliament. That is every member of Parliament.
There is always somebody somewhere, I suppose, who is not doing what their job is, but we have democracy and votes to sort that out. In my experience, they do a very effective job. However, sitting in here and pretending that hybrid is somehow shirking our responsibilities or that members of Parliament are not rising to the responsibility of serving their communities is putting a wilful blindfold over one's eyes and missing the essential work that every member is doing in the House.
I would submit that we have the opposite problem. Hybrid is an opportunity to make a cultural statement, one that I wish, in retrospect, was made to me when I entered the House in 2004. It was not to work harder. My dear God, I had no time in my calendar for anything else. It was to say no. It was to learn to create boundaries and space and make sure we were there for the most important moments in our lives.
When it all washes away, this opportunity to serve comes down to this: a name printed on a paper card that could be changed in a second. That is it. Somebody is going to say it is a prop. That is fair. That is my name. It is on a piece of paper. I can read it—
An hon. member: Prop.
2167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 6:48:35 p.m.
- Watch
I do not know about the member saying his name, but I know the hon. member cannot name other people.
I would just remind members that they are well aware of what they can and cannot use in the House or show in the House. Even though it might be a paper from the House, it still would be considered a prop if a member is making a direct point about it.
The hon. government House leader.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
