Debates of Dec. 7th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Afghanistan

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative motion reminds me of the relationship that I have with my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on Twitter. Let us just say that my intentions are not always the best when we debate on Twitter, and I get the impression that what the Conservatives are trying to do is embarrass the government.

I would ask my colleague whether he would agree with me that there should be an amendment to the Conservative proposal to focus on the present and the future from a humanitarian perspective.

Would that not be a good way to untie this knot that perhaps leaves us with the impression that the aim of my Conservative friends is to make the government look bad?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for his question. We all like to poke fun at each other on Twitter from time to time.

In the first part of his question, he says that the purpose of our motion is to make the government look bad. However, if the government had done its job properly, we would not be debating this motion today, and we could have debated a motion about something else. If the government does not do its job properly, then it must answer for that.

With regard to the second part of his question, I was told that the Bloc Québécois has amendments to propose, which I think are quite acceptable. I cannot give the final confirmation because I am not the one responsible for this matter, but I think that the Bloc Québécois is raising some interesting points. The important thing is that we be able to adopt a motion that everyone finds acceptable in order to hold the government to account.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question of others and would be interested in the member's response to it.

We have standing committees on foreign affairs, immigration and defence. They have been known to coordinate in the past. There would be more involvement by members of Parliament.

I am wondering if the member believes that our standing committees have a role to play in this. Should they be pushed to the side in favour of this motion?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is good to see him in the House, so I thank him for being here.

The fact is, all the committees are already overloaded because they have to conduct their own studies on specific subjects or bills. For example, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations had to be established because there were so many subjects that needed to be studied.

More recently, the Special Committee on the Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States was established. The reason we need to form special committees is that there are too many subjects to study and the existing committees do not have time. For example, if the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development were asked to do a study, it could take six months or even a year to complete.

We must act swiftly. I think that enough members would want to be on the special committees, so that is not a problem, because all of them would be happy to be part of these committees.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his dedication and service to our country, in particular in preparing our service members to help out in Afghanistan and help Afghans.

He highlighted the risk that Afghans face on a daily basis from the Taliban. I know first-hand the torture and abuse and how vicious the Taliban can be when they take revenge on those they feel do not support their cause.

I would like the member to elaborate further on the urgency of setting up this committee and getting solid recommendations to the government to take action now.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is a great soldier who served missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. When he was elected for his first term in office, he was just getting back from Iraq. I thank him for his military service.

We know the Taliban are capable of the worst cruelty imaginable. They are lawless people who will do whatever they want to a five-year-old child because that child is just a piece of meat to them. The Taliban deserve no respect because they do not respect human life. That is why we must act now. People over there are in dire straits. Their lives are in imminent danger. The Taliban would just as readily kill someone who helped Canada as they would a fly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting and important discussion we are having today. Earlier I posed a question to the leader of the official opposition, and prior to asking the question, I commented on what we share in common. The aspect both of us agree on is our appreciation and love for members of the Canadian Forces and, over and above them, service members who were engaged in what took place in Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan issue has been before the House of Commons at many different points in time over the last decade or more. In fact, it very much predates my first election to the House of Commons back in 2010. I want to approach the issue of process first and foremost as a parliamentarian and second as someone who has gone through the election and heard what the Leader of the Opposition and other members talked about regarding the election call, priorities and so forth.

Back in the day there was a war taking place in Iraq, and there was a great deal of pressure on then prime minister Jean Chrétien that we be engaged. We were being criticized, from what I can remember, by the Conservatives for not committing. I believe the NDP was opposed to it. The former prime minister, back in the day, made the decision that Canada would not get directly involved, even though the Americans wanted us to be.

We argued that we wanted to work with the United Nations and others in dealing with the issue of terrorism and the other issues that were taking place in that area of the world. The decision was made somewhere in the early 2000s, in 2001 or 2002, that Canada would have a presence with members of our forces. We should never take that lightly.

We have heard members indicate they have served. The former minister of defence is, from my perspective, a hero. I believe he has served two or three terms in Afghanistan or in that area of the world. There are a number of other members of Parliament who have served.

I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces, but that was in the early eighties so I was never deployed. However, on November 11, I would be walking with World War II veterans in parades, which was immediately followed by going to the legions and listening to the horror stories of World War II. The sacrifices made by members of the Canadian Forces are important to recognize, and we need to state very clearly that we will never forget and that where we can learn, we will learn.

At the end of the day, I believe that not one Liberal member of Parliament is saying there is nothing we can learn from what has taken place. There are already standing committees, and there is nothing that prevents standing committees from dealing with what is being proposed today by the official opposition.

I believe there is a bit of politics in the motion. Those who say there is no politics in it should read some of the speeches provided by the leader of the official opposition. Members cannot tell me there is no politics within the motion, because there is. If opposition members believe it is time we put politics to the side, at least at the onset of this, I suggest they are undermining the potential value of our standing committees.

They are proposing a committee that would have, I believe, 12 members. Standing committees such as foreign affairs should absolutely be dealing with it. In fact, it could even be coordinating with our other two standing committees on immigration and defence.

More resources and more members of Parliament would all be able to contribute, if in fact what the official opposition said was true: that it is not on a political witch hunt, but is trying to get a better understanding of what has taken place. Let us see what happens in the standing committees. Depending on what takes place, there might need to be a follow-up motion of this nature. Anything before that, I would argue, is somewhat premature and possibly politically motivated.

This is not the first time Afghanistan has been the type of issue it is today. In 2009, when we were in a minority and the Conservatives were in government, the production of papers was always an important issue. We recognize and understand that. That is why the government House leader, the other day, stood in this place and provided an option to deal with what was happening with the Winnipeg lab and the records that were being demanded by members of the opposition. He put something on the table that would alleviate the concerns parliamentarians had with regard to the release of documents.

When we were in official opposition and the Conservatives were in government and there was a need for documents that could potentially be of interest in terms of national security and beyond, an agreement was signed by Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff and the leader of the Bloc. They understood that a blanket motion, such as the motion that we have seen today, was not in our best interests.

Let me go back. I said earlier that as a parliamentarian, I was very interested in one aspect of the motion. I will read that part. It is really interesting. When I was in opposition, there is no way I would have supported a motion of this nature. The Conservatives are saying:

[A]ny proceedings before the committee, when hybrid committee meetings are authorized, in relation to a motion to exercise the committee's power to send for persons, papers and records shall, if not previously disposed of, be interrupted upon the earlier of the completion of four hours of consideration or one sitting week after the motion was first moved....

The Conservatives talk about parliamentary tradition, but there seems to be a bit of a double standard here on the standing committees, or at least the standing committees that I have participated in. I would ask my colleagues from the opposition, if they are going to vote in favour of this, to tell me that this is another standing committee, especially if the Conservatives are in government. They are saying that whether a member is in the government or the opposition, members will not be able to continue to have dialogue and ask questions.

It was interesting to listen to the leader of the official opposition when he was giving his comments. He said that maybe if the New Democrats did not work with the Liberals, they would be able to get this thing passed. It is kind of a bit of a rub with the NDP.

We all recognize that, yes, the NDP play a very important role in this and, yes, the Conservatives can maybe shame the NDP into supporting what they are trying to do here, but from a parliamentarian's perspective, I do not believe that it is a healthy motion that deserves the support of the House of Commons. It needs to be amended, at the very least.

The Conservatives would never advocate for that for opposition members in other standing committees, because they understand the importance of a member's right to be able to say something in the standing committees. At times there is a need to get things through, and unfortunately there are limits that are put into place from time to time, but I do not believe, given the subject matter we are talking about and the makeup of the committee, that this aspect of the motion is good.

The motion states that:

(vi) a copy of the documents shall also be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in both official languages within one month of the adoption of this order, with any proposed redaction which, in the government's opinion, could reasonably be expected (A) to compromise national security, military tactics or strategy of the armed forces of Canada or an allied country

It goes on to talk about the need for national security, so within the motion itself it is realized that there are very sensitive documents that one has to have a higher security clearance level to deal with.

We already have a standing committee that can deal with the issues that are being proposed. We are a part of the Five Eyes, which as of today has an all-party agreement and the security clearance to deal with this. We already have a motion on the floor from the government House leader, as I pointed out, to deal with the lab and the release of documents that have security concerns through the Department of Health. There is an arbitration mechanism. There is a wonderful opportunity for all parties. It is a very apolitical mechanism.

Where is the official opposition, in particular, in terms of wanting to genuinely come to the table and say “Okay, let's work this thing through”? It can be done if the opposition has the political will to make it happen.

Where we agree is on the need to look into these matters and to pose these questions. It is not just members of the opposition who have questions. There are many government members who have questions and they, too, want to hear answers.

We are not trying to hide anything. That is not the intent of the government, but much like when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and another issue regarding Afghanistan was before the House, an agreement was put in place that involved the three larger parties in the House: the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc. What has changed, other than that the Liberals are on the government benches and the Conservatives are on the opposition benches? Does the Conservative Party have no interest now in trying to resolve this? When passing this motion, which is yet to be determined, I would hope that members of the House would take a look at what is being asked of them.

In 2001, there was participation in some form or other from the Canadian Forces. I do not know the details of what it was. In 2002, the Canadian Forces really began to be deployed. In 2006 or 2007, the forces were deployed in a much larger number, and in 2014 the then government pulled the Canadian Forces out.

In that period of time, 159 members of the Canadian Armed Forces died as a result of being engaged in Afghanistan, not to mention the injuries and the psychological issues that have followed, and not including the non-military personnel. I believe that we owe it to those people to make sure that we do this correctly and appropriately. At least at the very beginning, let us take the politics out of it. There is a need to show compassion.

Members have mentioned that during the election we said 20,000 refugees. In 2015, when there was a crisis in Syria, we committed to 25,000 refugees. The Conservatives seemed to indicate that we would not be able to do it: that it was just an election gimmick. We more than surpassed that, by huge numbers.

We take very seriously the commitments that we have made. We talk now about 40,000. The member makes reference to those who supported the Canadian Forces. I remember talking to the media when I was in opposition about English translators supporting our Canadian Forces, and the need to accommodate them. It was in 2013 or 2014 that we first raised the issue and challenged the government to respond to that need.

We do not need to be told. We understand. We know what Canadians expect of the government. We will hit our targets that the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Foreign Affairs talk about, and the commitments coming from the Ministry of Defence. I really believe that the opportunity to provide humanitarian aid is there today. Our global diplomats have a focus on the refugee situation. I applaud those civil servants and diplomats who are going through some very difficult files seven days a week. I believe that the government is open to ideas, whether from members of the Liberal caucus or members of the opposition caucuses.

At the end of the day, I believe there are things we can learn from this. I am just not convinced that the motion before the House is really in our best interests. I understand why the official opposition has moved the motion, and I suspect that other opposition parties might be following suit. Maybe there could be some potential amendments. If the opposition came to the government and talked about it, maybe we could resolve this in a positive way, just like the positive resolution in 2010 that Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper and the leader of the Bloc signed off on. They did so because they recognized the importance of national security and the interests of Canada and of all the thousands of people who were directly affected by the release of information.

That is why I would have much rather preferred to see negotiations before getting to this point. My challenge to opposition members is to never give up on the negotiations. Bringing forward motions of this nature is an easy way out.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will first make a quick correction to something the member on the government side said: 158 Canadians died in Afghanistan, not 159.

The member talked throughout his speech about partisanship and that whole angle, yet he spent more time talking about the official opposition and history than the actual motion at hand, which is the importance of the urgency in taking care of these Afghans who risked their lives to support Canadians. Now we are leaving them behind. He suggested the standing committees as possible solutions to this. However, in the last Parliament, particularly at the defence committee, we witnessed Liberal members filibuster non-stop, and he wonders why part of the motion is to deal with this issue.

Will the member stand up for those Afghans who helped save Canadian lives and vote for this motion, or will he not?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I sat in opposition, I stood up for translators and argued that they should be able to come to Canada, given the service they had provided our nation. I believe most, if not all, parliamentarians recognize the valuable contributions locals in Afghanistan performed, endangering their lives in many different ways. We are all concerned. That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister and this government have made the solid commitment of 40,000 refugees. We will hit that target, and if anyone needs to be convinced of that, one needs only to look at the commitment we made to Syrian refugees, when we more than hit the target of 25,000 we set back then.

That sense of commitment is there. The passion and compassion are on all sides of this House, as we all want to resolve this in a positive fashion.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North always delivers very elaborate speeches that touch on several different issues. What he seems unable to do is admit that the government dropped the ball and sent out confusing messages. People were asked to do COVID-19 screening, fill out paperwork and have valid passports while the country was at war. There comes a point when a government has to act fast.

The Bloc Québécois does not want to dismiss this motion altogether. It could be part of a motion calling for humanitarian action. Does my colleague agree that a committee should be created that would decide which documents need to be provided, set its own deadlines and analyze the humanitarian situation to truly help the Afghan people?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would turn to the agreement signed by Gilles Duceppe, the member's former leader, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper. They recognized that there was very sensitive information, yet an agreement was achieved and documents were shared. We are not saying we should not be studying this issue. The government is not saying that.

There are questions on how to best do that. The government House leader made a recommendation on Health Canada and the lab issue, which would allow for it. Given the political desire to deal with this issue in an apolitical fashion, why not allow for negotiation to draw this to a conclusion? Instead, the opposition party is trying to force the government or the Speaker to make a ruling. This can be negotiated; it should be negotiated.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member for Winnipeg North's concerns. I think there is a desire from all members of the House to really look at this issue in depth. We may quibble over what the best format of that is, but the Conservatives have put together a motion, and that is for us to consider.

I wanted to ask about the specific section of the motion that makes reference to a House order, and I would invite the member to consider that this part of the motion is probably informed by the experiences the opposition had in the previous Parliament. I have heard other Liberal members make reference to the fact that time is our most precious resource. In my mind, having this part of the motion in place would save this committee time because, if there were to be any kind of obstruction or delays in this committee's attempt to gain information, at least it would have an order of the House accompanying it.

Would the member not agree that this has been informed by previous experiences, and that this would really be giving us the tools to do our job and hold the government to account?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows Mr. Christopherson from Hamilton. I would sit in committee with Mr. Christopherson, on such topics as on the Elections Act, and he would talk endlessly. As much as I would get a bit bored of what the member was saying, I respected what he was attempting to do. I believe that, through standing committees, we can negotiate compromises that will improve upon things.

Whether it is in provincial legislatures, here in Ottawa or in parliaments around the world, filibusters do, at times, improve situations. I would appeal to members to consider what should be done here. This motion is, in fact, premature. There is an obligation in this House to attempt to negotiate the best interests prior to bringing forward a motion of this nature. I wish that is what had happened.

If Gilles Duceppe, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper could negotiate on an Afghanistan issue back in 2010, why can we not do it here? Why is there this confrontation? I do not think the confrontation is necessary because we all agree that we want to look into it, study it and learn from it.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North that the probable reason there would be some confrontation here, if there were, and it is our view that there is not, is that there is not any information on the table. The government has had that information since last spring. If they had put it on the table and acted then, we would not be bringing this motion forward today, and we would have easily seen some results and activity out of it.

We would have a special meeting simply because, as it states right in the motion, under a special committee any information that would put any kind of security in jeopardy, for Canada or Afghanistan, is allowed to be redacted.

Is my colleague not in favour of saving the lives of these Afghan people who helped us make their country a better place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is the core of the problem, from my perspective. That is not accurate because, if there is an attempt to redact anything, the committee can say no and reverse it. This is one of the reasons.

I would recommend the members take a look at the government House leader's response to the issue on the health labs, getting information and the mechanism that is set up. I believe that we need to have a mechanism to deal with national security and the best interests of the Canadian Forces, as well as the best interests of the public as a whole. That is what we need, and that is not within the motion.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be brief, but I imagine the answer will be long, and I would like to stress the nuance.

Could my colleague tell us about what happened in the past when Mr. Harper, Mr. Duceppe and a third person, whose name I forget, found a way to study such a file?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot we can learn from the agreement achieved between the Bloc, the Liberals and the Conservatives back when Stephen Harper was prime minister.

There is a lot for us to learn. My suggestion to the opposition parties and, in fact, to all members, is to take a look at the advantages of negotiations. I know the government House leader is very open to talking this thing through and getting it resolved. Every member of Parliament, including Liberal members of Parliament, want to see a study on this take place.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time rising in this Parliament, so I would like to thank all of the wonderful people of Calgary Forest Lawn for putting their trust in me and sending me to this wonderful place to be their voice. I am thankful for all of the support from my family and everyone else who got me here.

I rise today in support of this important motion. The fall of Afghanistan was tragic, and the tragedy is still unfolding today. The U.S. made no secret of their troops' withdrawal. It was only a matter of time before the Taliban would advance through the country once American soldiers were out of the way.

When the U.S. made that announcement, veterans, NGOs and experts warned governments around the world that Afghan interpreters, support staff and their families were in urgent need, yet at the time that Kabul fell, Canada had no active plan to respond to the deteriorating situation.

The government conveniently hid behind the excuse of national security while our NATO allies were launching full-scale evacuation operations to get their citizens, and Afghans who had supported them, out of the conflict zone.

It has been about four months since Kabul fell, and we finally saw the first plane of privately sponsored refugees come to Canada last week. After almost 120 days, the government has yet to put a plan or a timeline in place for fulfilling its promise to resettle 40,000 Afghan refugees. The government has had months to prepare, months since the U.S. began its withdrawal and months since the Taliban took over the country. To say the situation in Afghanistan is dire would be an understatement. There are increasing food shortages, little to no access to money, and travel outside the country is severely limited.

The Taliban is actively hunting anyone who supported NATO and Canadian forces. The regime is arresting religious minorities, including Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Hazaras and Ahmadiyya Muslims, and charging them with blasphemy, putting their innocent lives at risk and, in some cases, resulting in death. Women's rights leaders, LGBTQ people, pro-democracy activists and anyone who dares to speak out against the Taliban are harassed, tortured and killed. Vulnerable Afghans are stranded in Afghanistan, watching their friends, family and neighbours arbitrarily arrested or summarily shot in the street.

In the middle of the Taliban takeover, the Prime Minister called an unnecessary and unwarranted election. He dissolved Parliament and with it, any accountability his government would have had to face. Whenever we ask the minister of immigration what his government is going to do to address this disaster, he has said that it is complicated, that they did not have enough information and that they are working on it.

Do members know what is hard? Hard is when a person has to hide in the country they fought for, knowing they are on a list and being hunted by a regime with historical ties to some of the most horrific terrorists in history. Hard is living in a country without money or food, unable to feed one's family, practice one's religion or speak one's mind. That is hard.

The government had months to plan for, and now months to evacuate, those who served alongside our forces and in our embassy. Now it makes excuses and talks about a big commitment to settle 40,000 refugees in Canada. Like other Liberal promises, this one will surely be left behind, just as the government left people stranded at the airport.

The situation has only become more urgent after the data breach at IRCC, which released hundreds of Afghan refugees' personal information. When I wrote to the privacy commissioner calling for an investigation, I knew that the government would do nothing about this. I welcome the privacy commissioner's investigation into this life-threatening data breach, and I hope changes are made by the government to prevent further leaks of sensitive data. This incident, along with the government's inaction, gives me no confidence that the Prime Minister or his cabinet will do anything.

There seems to be a lack of urgency coming from the Liberals. It is sad. Afghan refugees feel abandoned. They have been stranded in a country with a regime that is hunting them. My inbox is flooded daily with emails from Afghan interpreters and other vulnerable people desperate for help. They are pleading for someone to do anything to help them. Their calls and emails to IRCC go unanswered. They cannot even get an acknowledgement from the department on whether their case is even being processed or not. It is all well and good for the minister to state that they are in the process, but those families have been left completely in the dark, just like the tens of thousands of individuals stuck in the government's massive backlog of applicants.

It is not just those stranded in Afghanistan. This fall, I met with former Afghan interpreters who were resettled in Canada by the previous Conservative government. Now that the Taliban is back in control, they are trying to get their families out and into Canada as soon as possible. They told me stories of how their families were in more danger now than ever. However, IRCC is dragging its feet, leaving these people in the dark.

When the Afghan government fell, there was no time for the public servants to destroy sensitive documents, so the Taliban now has all the information on anyone who served with the International Security Assistance Force, the Afghan military and Canadian Armed Forces. The interpreters, proud of their service in the war, had shared photos and stories on social media. The Taliban took that information too.

Since the Taliban began retaking Afghanistan, they have used any information they can get their hands on to find, target, arrest, torture and kill anyone who served with us and our allies in the war. If the Taliban cannot find the interpreters or support staff, they target their families.

The Taliban send the interpreters messages and emails threatening their families, their parents, siblings, spouses and children. When they realize that the interpreter is in Canada, they begin killing the interpreter’s family members. The government’s answer to this desperate situation is to offer to prioritize family sponsorship applications, the same applications that are in massive backlogs and that were not being processed throughout the pandemic.

I have personally experienced first-hand the inaction and bureaucratic disaster of the Liberal government. In 2015, I helped to sponsor an Afghan family to come to Canada. The family members are religious minorities who were persecuted by the very people who now control Afghanistan.

Before I continue, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

My older brother, the late Manmeet Singh Bhullar, started an amazing initiative to bring those persecuted Sikhs and Hindus refugees over here. It took four years for the Liberal government to bring those who were heavily persecuted to Canada. This included young women and girls who were being targeted as they walked to school. They were being forced into conversion and forced marriages, and the civil government sat around for four years.

We see the same thing today. It is all due to the bureaucratic, Liberal-made backlog that is causing so many families harm. In this case, it is costing lives. Today, 1.8 million applications are backlogged, waiting to be processed. Families are behind those backlogs. It is hurting families and costing lives.

Let us think of the refugees who are ignored by the government and are left hoping for private sponsorship. If the private sponsorship only happens every few years during an election year, how can anyone say the government is not abandoning these refugees?

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the veterans and active-duty soldiers in Canada, first for their service and second for their tireless efforts in trying to get Afghan interpreters and their families over to Canada after the Taliban took over. It is because of them, other Canadians and people around the world that Afghan refugees are getting out.

These brave veterans have partnered with NGOs to fill the void left by the government. That first plane of Afghan refugees who finally made it to Canada was only possible because of veterans and private citizens who took the initiative and acted. That is why we need to pass this motion to finally get to the bottom of the disaster that has unfolded in Afghanistan and to not let our soldiers’ sacrifice be in vain.

We need to finally act and evacuate those Afghan refugees abandoned by the government. Families of people still stuck in Afghanistan tell me that they live in constant fear, afraid every time the phone rings. They are afraid that it will be the call telling them their loved ones have been killed by the Taliban.

Enough is enough. We must pass this motion to hold the government to account and get to the bottom of its failures. We are a country that prides itself on being peacekeepers, defenders of democracy and a land of opportunity. Now is our opportunity to do the right thing.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the previous Conservative member talk about the need for collaboration, to get along and remove partisan politics from this. However, the entire last speech took political shots repetitively at the government.

Does the member not feel the same way, that it is important to try to remove the politics from this?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is political is the fact that when Kabul was falling, that member's boss, the Prime Minister, called an election and abandoned any responsibility to those who served our country. That was political. The failed $650 million election was selfish and an expensive cabinet shuffle. These are the words of those who served our country. They deserve this investigation to find out what happened. Why were they abandoned? That is why we brought this motion forward.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think all our western allies will view that what happened in Kabul was a catastrophe with respect to our nation-building claims and ability.

What concerns me is that we are not talking about learning the lessons. Rather, we are dealing with the hurt feelings of the Liberals while we discuss the catastrophe that happened in Kabul.

Veterans were calling me daily trying to get the interpreters they worked with safely to Canada. I talked with international midwifery organizations that were trying to get women health workers. They were having to rely on other nations. To me, this is not about blame; this is about putting billions into Afghanistan. We told the Afghan people we would be there. We lost a lot of young people in Afghanistan. We have an obligation to find out what happened in Kabul and let the chips fall where they may. Would my hon. colleague agree?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with that. We owe a sense of duty to those who serve our country and we owe it to them to know what exactly happened. When they did everything they could to serve our country, why were they abandoned? Our country was supposed to serve them.

That is the heart of this motion. We want to strike a committee for those people. It is for the veterans and the NGOs that had to step up when their government failed to so. They want answers. The people who have been abandoned want answers. This is not about politics. I hope the NDP will join us in supporting the motion so we can get to the bottom of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, one issue that I worked on, and I know other members have been working on it as well, for the last six years is with respect to the creation of a special program to help the religious minority communities that face severe persecution in Afghanistan. We have been calling for that for six years. Sadly, the government did not act and, in many respects, it is now too late for many of those people. It is very disappointing.

I wonder if the member can comment specifically on the situation of those minority communities that could have been helped, but were not helped.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy.

We as the Conservative Party put forward in our platform that we would help those refugees who had been persecuted. I have been through the process of trying to resettle a family from Afghanistan through private sponsorship. Again, it was the Liberal-made backlogs and bureaucracy that stopped this from happening. We recognized this in our platform and we wanted to speed up those refugee applications. We want to put more emphasis on private sponsorship, because we have seen the government-led programs and they are even worse. The backlog is costing lives, which is why we proposed that in our election platform.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech with this quote:

“Welcome to Canada” is more than a headline or a hashtag. It is the spirit of humanity that every single one of us would yearn for, if our family was in crisis. I pray that you continue to open your homes and your hearts to the world’s most defenceless children and families — and I hope your neighbours will follow your example.

This was said by Pakistan's most prominent citizen, Malala, in the House of Commons in April 2017. Anyone who was here in the 42nd Parliament was were able to hear those words of Malala and see the work she was doing on human rights, especially for women.

This is a really important time, because yesterday we celebrated 100 years of women in Parliament. We can reflect on this and what we see today in Afghanistan. I want to reflect on some of the history of Afghanistan and how we got to this place.

As many members noted, after the horrific incidents that happened on September 11, 2001, Canada joined its allies to fight against the Taliban.

Canada contributed to the war as the Taliban and their insurgency continued to grow. Canada concluded its operations in 2011, and left Afghanistan in 2014, but it was part of the rebuilding. In Afghanistan, we lost 158 of soldiers and many others were left with psychological and physical issues.

This is a very important conversation because we have to look at where we are today. Why were we there and what great work was done during this period of time? When the Taliban took over, we knew the horrific things that were happening to women in that country. It is really important that we have this committee. It is important to not only look at the $2.2 billion in humanitarian aid to that country, but also to look at where they are today and see how we can move forward.

As I indicated, yesterday, we celebrated 100 years of women in Parliament, but we have to reflect on what we see in Afghanistan. All elected officials of its government are males. They are not there to be the voices of women. They are there to be the voices of the Taliban.

I have heard many people speak about some of the tragedies. As I was doing my research and looking at all the information for this speech, I looked at the fact that in our own chamber, we have former litigators, former journalists and people who worked in public broadcasting. However, today in Afghanistan that would not be an option for a woman. The Taliban has taken that away. In the last four months, women who were fighting and continuing to be the voices of women have now been stuck in their homes and told not to come out because of security reasons. These are the same things that we heard from 1996 to 2001, when the Taliban ruled that country. Unfortunately, we are seeing the exact same thing beginning to happen today.

What is Canada going to do about this? We are a country that talks about human rights. We are a country that wants to see more for women. We know now that young men and boys are allowed to go to school, from grades seven to 12, but girls are not welcome. The girls are not back in those houses of education. Malala indicated, “The extremists are afraid of books and pens. The power of education frightens them. They are afraid of women. The power of the voice of women frightens them.”

That is exactly what we are seeing today, a country that is going backward. We are seeing a country that has now taken all of the rights of women backward. Unfortunately, a lot of these women are trying to go forward and trying are to have their voices heard. As we have heard from many members, at what cost. A lot of times the cost is their lives and we have to be very worried about that. These are the things we should be speaking to at the committee, not just how we failed Afghanistan in August 2021 but how we can move forward to ensure there is equality.

An Olympic athlete from Afghanistan would like to compete in the 2024 Olympics, but right now she is hiding in her home. She had a number of Taliban come to her home looking for her because of her postings on Facebook and other social media feeds. This young woman is now fearful for her life. These are the people for whom we should be fighting. These are some of the most vulnerable people in the world. They should be able to have this opportunity.

When Afghanistan was ruined after the Taliban, Canada was part of remodelling and restructuring of Afghanistan. We were part of the education and we were part of the infrastructure. We were part of the education when it came to policing and training. This is what our role was.

To all of those persons, whether they are in the Canadian Armed Forces or are members of NGOs across Canada, I thank them so much for making it a better world. Unfortunately, we are at a stalling point and we know we are going backward. It is really important that we continue to move forward, though.

I would like to read a quote from the Olympic athlete I was talking about. She is a paralympian athlete, who said, “Please, I request you all, especially all the women from around the globe and the female institutions and the United Nations to not let the right of a female citizen of Afghanistan in the Paralympic movement to be taken away, so easily.”

This is a young tae kwon do athlete. These are the things that here in Canada we strive for. With children in our own country, we try to make sure they have opportunities. We know poverty continues to get worse in Afghanistan and that the opportunities for food are not there, and there are many other things its citizens have to deal with every day.

When the Taliban came to power, it promised to respect women and allow them to participate in public life in accordance with Islamic law, but secondary schools remain closed for girls and many women are finding returning to work difficult, with the exception of some professionals in some of the health care sectors.

We have to recognize that women's rights are not being upheld. We need to talk about what we want to see for this globe. When we are talking about wars and things that happen in these countries that are horrific, we know a lot of it has to do with equality. Unfortunately, what we are seeing in Afghanistan is the exact opposite. This is why we need to work together. This is the reality of what Afghan women are seeing, and once again, we need to be on the ground and helping these people.

On August 26, we were able to bring some to Canada, who were able to get to flights. We need to do more. As many members have indicated, veterans and other people watching what is happening in Afghanistan are writing emails and letters and calling our offices to ask how they can help.

We know this tragedy is not going to go away if we just turn a blind eye. It is important to have this committee to talk about where we were in August, what we should have done and how we are going to move forward.

This is an urgent time for all and I would like to talk about the ministry and what has happened. We see simple things like the fact that the ministry of women's affairs has been replaced. Since the Taliban has come into force, there is not a ministry of women. It has now been replaced with the ministry for the propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice.

Perhaps somebody can tell me what that means. It seems very forceful and not about women's equality, not about education for women and not about the opportunities for the families and the generations to come. What are we going to see next?

I would like to end with a quote from the interim mayor of Kabul, who said that women municipal workers in Kabul should stay home unless they hold “positions that men could not fill or that were not for men.”

We have to understand that we do not want to move backward. We need to be a country that shows its principles, works with other countries and ensures we are there for Afghanistan in its time of need.