Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'd be happy to speak to the same point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, these points really are not consistent with long-standing practice. Members know that. If a member is talking about something else for a period of 30 to 60 seconds, to interrupt that member before they've had any opportunity.... If somebody is speaking for five minutes and none of it has any relation to the motion....

The convention in the House of Commons is that we've had cases of people telling lengthy background stories—and that's not what the member is doing here—going on for five, six or seven minutes without reference to the bill, and then concluding by creating a connection to the bill. That's a long-established practice. Members across the way know that. I see what they're trying to do.

Chair, I think you've repeatedly ruled that their points are off. I hope they will just stop the interruptions in light of your repeated rulings.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Chair, further to that, I would argue that relevance is relevance. It is a concept that is not hard to understand.

I would say that an IRCC processing plant in Vegreville or anywhere has absolutely nothing to do with the future agenda of this committee, which is not being set but is being proposed as something for us to do in the fall.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

I have no doubt that Mrs. Stubbs will explain to us the connection between her comments and the motion, especially since she was getting ready to let someone else have the floor, if I'm not mistaken.

Please wrap up your comments, Mrs. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it somewhat surprising that the Liberal members don't seem to think that talking about the real experiences—which I was just about to get to—of refugees from war-torn Ukraine are relevant to this motion and also to the committee. I'm quite certain that it's exactly the kind of experience that we should be talking about, given the motion's comments about the escalating situation at the Russia-Ukraine border, which has, of course, created 13 million refugees. Over six million of those are fleeing from Ukraine.

Let me tell you about the experiences of one of the Ukrainians who are now in Vegreville, in Lakeland. He's a guy named Makita. He is 19 years old. He came to Canada to play hockey. He billets in Vegreville, in Lakeland. It's no surprise that the community has taken him under their wing.

When war broke out and Putin attacked, he frantically tried to keep in touch with his family—his mother, Natalia, and his sister, Anna, who is 16. He wanted to try to get them here to Canada. He knew his father couldn't come, and his mother considered trying to send his sister to Canada to safety, because she's only 16. It was hard, of course, to send a minor alone.

Makita has worked at a tire shop. The community has fundraised intensely to get them money to come. They auctioned off his hockey jersey to show support. He wanted to go get them, but the community begged him not to, because he wouldn't be able to get back out.

His family barely speaks English, and their only option was the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel, so Makita went to a friend for help on their laptop to apply. Of course, as I know all of your offices are probably hearing right across the country, it was really confusing and took weeks, even after approval for his family. Then they had to make their way to provide biometrics, which aren't available in Ukraine. His mother and sister finally arrived on April 19, but with no financial support except for the goodwill, kindness and charity of the people of Vegreville. Of course, they'd like to plan their lives and find jobs, since there is no funding available to them from the government, but you can imagine it's not easy, as it wouldn't be for any new Canadian or refugee here with a language barrier. Right now they are just in total limbo.

The problem comes down to immigration issues, challenges and delays that Canada so far doesn't seem equipped to deal with, which are exactly the barriers and challenges your committee should be looking at when you continue this priority study, which I hope you'll decide to do so that you can make concrete recommendations to make a real difference in the lives of all these innocent people.

I think that Makita's story is important to understanding the real human aspect of what we're talking about, which often can be theoretical, conceptual or mainly systemic.

Makita's family had to go on the website, which, being Canadian, was in only English and French. His mother and sister could not understand, and they did not have regular computer services. They tried to get on through their phones. Long hold times caused them to give up, which was when Makita went to a friend's house to try to apply. For just his mother and sister, it took almost four hours, as they asked questions about where his mother worked and his sister went to school, with addresses and dates. He stayed on hold on a very poor phone line, losing her multiple times. After applying, Makita still had to check the government account to try to tell her when he got a message. Then his mother was told to get biometrics and had to get to a place to do that in Poland and wait for an appointment. They have no car, and nothing was provided for them. They had to go, not only for biometrics, but again to submit the passport. It took two separate visits for these refugees to get their application done in a foreign country.

Now they are in Canada. Makita's mother, who barely speaks English, does not have a job. The federal government announced that there would be—as they had mentioned before—some short-term income support to ensure their basic needs are met, but of course there are no details.

Those who entered under the emergency travel authorization don't know if that will include them or if it will be only for those who are brought over on charter flights by the Canadian government. Of course, the first round of chartered flights from the Canadian government won't show up in Ukraine until next week.

People are calling in—I'm sure it's the same in your offices—saying that their applications are sitting...because they had an application in prior, to visit, and now agents are not completing them for ridiculous reasons, such as not knowing if you should give a one-time entry or a multi-entry to refugees coming from a war zone under attack.

In another case, my constituent, Darren, called for his father-in-law, who had originally applied to come and see his daughter's new baby. The agent said they hadn't been approved because they were not sure what type of entry visa to give, single or multi. The system is broken overall, I think, but particularly in this case. I think it is up to the members of Parliament here, who obviously could have an impact, to put pressure on the minister to provide adequate direction to make these changes that are important in people's real lives.

I would just say that if departmental officials in our own Canadian government don't know the answers, I don't know how in heck vulnerable Ukrainians fleeing for their lives are supposed to figure all of this out. That's why it's so important that in your committee you continue your work and redouble your efforts and commitment to study the situation in Ukraine, and that you really fulfill your role as MPs on this important committee, beyond gestures and displays and words, to make concrete recommendations to make a difference for the people of Ukraine. It's important that you make a difference for Ukrainian Canadians everywhere and help find ways for Canada to help Ukraine, which is under attack, and bring Ukrainians to safety. Of course, that's something that all of us from all parties keep saying repeatedly that we want to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate being able to be here.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

On the speaking list, I have Ms. Dancho, Mr. Brock, Ms. Gladu, Mr. Genuis again, Ms. Bendayan and Ms. Fry, in that order.

Over to you, Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to recognize, first off, as we debate this motion to adjourn, the motion on women's health. I want to say and recognize how very sensitive this issue is. Women particularly, as I'm seeing on this committee for sure, and that includes me, have very strong feelings about this. It's very deeply personal. My objective today is to ensure that those feelings are respected.

That being said, Mr. Chair, I feel very obligated to address something that the member for Edmonton Strathcona said. I took great offence to her generalizing Conservative men in the way she did. I have served with the Conservative federal caucus for two and a half years. I know my male colleagues to be good men, compassionate men, and hard-working, principled and patriotic men. I'm also married to a Conservative man. Many of my dearest friends are Conservative men.

For anyone to generalize in the way she did about Conservative men, I take great, deep and personal offence to that.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

I have Mr. Oliphant on a point of order.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

My concern is that the issue of being male was not the issue. The issue was Mr. Genuis's saying, “Can I speak to the point of order? I don't think I've ever disclosed my gender to this committee.”

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

That's not a point of order.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

It had nothing to do with being “male”. It had to do with the fact that he was making fun of people whose gender identity is not determined.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I was not making fun, Mr. Chair. If he can address this on a point of order, then I should have been able to as well.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

That is the issue that Ms. McPherson was raising.

I'm happy to quote from the debate—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm happy to address it, but he should address this by raising his hand, not by interrupting someone else.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

If I may address that, Mr. Chair—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

I realize this debate has roused everyone's passions, but so far, it's a matter of interpretation.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Order.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Ms. Fry, please put your mike on mute.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Order indeed: We have four people speaking at once. They are speaking over each other. That's my point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Ms. Fry, I—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I'm making a point of order, Chair. I have a right to do so.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron]

Please go ahead.

What is your point of order, Ms. Fry?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

My point of order is this. I am listening to this debate and I heard four people speaking over each other. I was asking for there to be order and precedence [Technical difficulty—Editor] people's names are up for speaking.

If a member raises their hand, as the chair well knows, on a point of order, that takes precedence. Mr. Oliphant was speaking to a point of order. He was interrupted not only by Mr. Genuis but by two other people. I would really like to see some order occurring in this forum.

Thank you.