Hoang Mai

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is 10:45 p.m., and I am pleased and proud to rise in the House today.

As a new parliamentarian—even though I have been here four years now—I think that this is a very important debate. We are talking about a mission of war that Canada wants to continue overseas.

When we think about the impact of this war, we need to think about the men and women in uniform that we are sending abroad, because they are going to be risking their lives and making every possible sacrifice to keep our country safe. We therefore have to wonder exactly what they will be doing.

Unfortunately, when we asked the government questions about that six months ago, when it decided to send our men and women in uniform to fight abroad, the mission was not clearly defined. When we asked clear questions about the mission to find out what our soldiers would be doing there, the government said that the mission would simply involve assistance, advice and support. It was never meant to be a combat mission.

Today, we know that our soldiers are unfortunately facing fire. Our men and women in uniform who are there have to protect themselves and fire on the enemy. They are very close to the fighting. What is more, we have unfortunately lost a soldier, who was killed by friendly fire, even though there was nothing friendly about it.

This decision goes way beyond the intention that the government claimed to have initially, when it said that we were only there to provide advice. Even then, we were opposed to this mission. I was very proud of the NDP's position and I still am. We proposed that, instead, Canada focus its efforts on humanitarian aid, since we know that this conflict is having a serious impact.

I heard my colleagues opposite saying that the NDP is not taking the threat seriously. On the contrary, we are. However, the solution the NDP is proposing is very different from the Conservatives' solution.

Our amendment to the motion is very clear, so I will not get into the details of our proposals, but we think the most important thing is ending the participation of Canadian troops in combat, air strikes and the advise-and-assist training in Iraq and Syria as soon as possible. I am proud of our position.

I got into politics for a number of reasons. The first was Canada's involvement in Afghanistan when Jean Chrétien's Liberals were in power. I am actually a little disappointed that we have not heard from our Liberal colleagues because I had a lot of questions for them. Unfortunately, all we have heard from them is questions. We have not had a chance to hear them explain their position in speeches, nor have we been able to ask them questions, and I am very disappointed about that.

Let us remember that it was the Liberals who sent Canada to Afghanistan. They did pretty much what George Bush did after the events of September 11, 2001, which shocked not only Canadians but the whole world. They reacted by sending our troops to fight in Afghanistan.

The Liberals are so proud of themselves for not getting involved in Iraq. The Prime Minister, who was a member of the opposition at the time, wanted to get involved in Iraq. However, all these years later, it has become clear that getting involved there was a mistake.

To illustrate the Liberals' doublespeak, during the last election, the Liberal candidate I was debating admitted that the mission in Afghanistan was a mistake.

In 2003, the Conservative government said that we had to intervene in Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction there.

Then they took our position. They realized that it was basically nonsense. Now they want to continue the war that we unfortunately did not wage at the time—or so the Conservatives say. They are very disappointed that we did not take part in it in 2003.

We need to think about the repercussions. Once again, perhaps it is because of my roots and my parents that I think this way. I often talk about the Vietnam War when I am addressing the House, but that is also one of the reasons I am here in Canada. It is also one of the reasons I believe we need to learn from our past mistakes and from history. There was a war in Vietnam, which was bombed all over the place. The question we need to ask is whether, in the end, that was a good way to help the people. If you were to go there today and ask the Vietnamese people if they were happy to have a war and be bombed, if it helped their society, many would say no.

That is a question we need to ask ourselves now. We need to learn from our mistakes. I do not know whether my colleagues opposite or anyone can say that it was a really great thing for us to go into Afghanistan. There were 160 Canadian soldiers who lost their lives over there. Thousands of soldiers were wounded and they still suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder back at home in Canada. Was that a good thing? That is why I am very disappointed that we were not able to have this debate with the Liberals, whom I unfortunately did not hear from tonight. However, apart from the partisan side of this whole debate, the fundamental question we must ask ourselves as members of Parliament is whether this is the best course of action. What is the best option?

I can understand the Conservatives who say that they want to protect the people in Iraq. However, it is very simplistic to say that dropping bombs will fix the situation. The other side has been talking about humanitarian assistance. Canada is providing assistance, but it is not much compared to what is being invested in the military, with all of the consequences and devastation.

One thing we cannot forget and that is rarely mentioned here in the House, especially on the government side, is what we call collateral damage. How many people will die as a result of a bombing? We apparently have all the new technology and, by some miracle, the government thinks that there will be no impact. I am not just talking about the innocent people who will die, the civilians, the men and women. The damage extends to the entire families that will have to live with this.

The government tries to simplify everything when it talks about bombing some group. Initially, the government started by targeting Iraq, but now it is increasingly targeting Syria. What is the objective? Just where will this deployment end up? That is what the government is not capable of answering. These questions make it obvious that the government does not have a clear vision.

We know—and the government has said it—that we are talking about years and years of war. I remind the House once again that we were in Afghanistan for 10 years. It was Canada's longest military mission. Can we truly say that with pride? Can we truly say that we managed to fix the problem? Is this really the solution?

The government is asking for a one-year extension. It initially talked about six months, but now it is one year. We are getting ourselves into a quagmire.

That is why we are saying that right now we need to be looking at humanitarian assistance and how we can truly help people. The simplistic solution is to drop bombs, but that will not fix the problem.

I am expecting some attacks, and we have already heard some. I remind members that the mission in Libya had the support of the UN and the NDP went along with it. However, we did not support the government's decision to go further.

[Rail Transportation, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives should have learned from the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, but the statistics are alarming

In 2014 alone, there were 73% more CN train derailments. The preliminary report from the Transportation Safety Board on the accidents near Gogama states that the tank cars that have supposedly been improved since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy are not strong enough. However, the government announced that these unsafe tank cars would be used on our rails for another 10 years.

When will the minister revise her plans and protect the public?

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. It is pretty clear, so I will read it. It states:

Attacking the issue of domestic violence through the lens of immigration and criminal law is wrong-headed. The bill seeks to deport people who are engaged in polygamy, and that would include the very women that the government claims it's trying to protect. The denial of permanent and/or temporary resident status to people involved in polygamous relationships will not have the desired effect of protecting women; it will simply bar women in such relationships from coming to Canada.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned—and I hope he listened to what I had to say—our concern is with the victim. We want to make sure that the victims are protected, and that is one of the problems New Democrats have with this bill.

This measure is not about prevention. The government is actually cutting funds for Status of Women.

On the one hand, as I explained, the bill simply criminalizes people, without really tackling the problem itself. The Conservative government has cut social programs, which has had a direct impact. I have met with community organizations that have told me that their funding has been cut.

These are organizations to help immigrants get involved and get integrated, and that is what the government is cutting. It is cutting funds to these organizations, and New Democrats see the problems that arise from that. Our concern is actually about the victims, the women and kids, who are affected by that. The government's actions are actually making it worse for them.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, which has a rather odd title. We are debating the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

I listened to several colleagues on the opposite side of the House, and also on this side, talk about the title. We are talking about the title because the government clearly intends to start this debate in a rather extreme way. The government is generalizing. That has been the trend recently with the government and the Prime Minister. We also heard several Conservative members attack a culture or a cultural community that has already been targeted by a great deal of generalization. The Conservatives clearly intend to breed a culture of fear, whether through the debate in the House on what will happen with Canada's intervention in Iraq or through its practice of pigeonholing certain communities.

As a member of a cultural community myself, I believe that the government is intentionally seeking to divide people with its approach. The government wants to tackle this issue. We see that. Obviously, the Conservatives came up with a certain directive so that they could go back to their ridings, go on the radio and tell women to go back where they came from if they do not like how things are done in Canada. Unfortunately, that is what the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did. I am a member of that committee.

To come back to the debate we are having today on Bill S-7, let us be clear: the NDP is against forced marriage, underage marriage and polygamy. These issues are clear. Despite the rhetoric that we are hearing from the other side of the House, I think everyone here and all Canadians agree on these issues.

However, the government's level of debate is somewhat shameful. I am talking about form. With regard to the substance of the debate, when we listen to the Conservatives speak, we hear a bit about the main objective. However, the problem is the same as it is with many bills. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a short time and I saw Conservative bills that created criminal offences. When it comes to criminalization, the Conservatives' motto is law and order. As a result, they are making everything a crime. They are going to put people in prison. They are going to build megaprisons and that is how they are going to solve society's problems. Unfortunately, that is a very dogmatic approach that is so typical of the Conservatives. It really is their way of doing things. However, the problem with that is that they do not think about the people who will be affected.

In this particular case, when we talk about forced marriage, for example, we are talking about women and children, who are the most likely victims. They will technically be victims of the Conservatives' bill. That is why I will explain why I oppose this bill. The government comes in with a sledgehammer and says that we will throw people in prison without looking at the facts or listening to stakeholders. The government makes a broad generalization and then says that this is the solution. The government has no data on forced marriages, and we have no statistics to know what is going on in Canada. What is really happening?

As sensible legislators, we must look at what other countries are doing. I want to cite one of the examples given today, which I will continue to reference. If we look at what happens in Denmark, for example, we can see that a bill somewhat similar to the government's bill was passed in 2008, if I am not mistaken. Since then, not a single charge has been laid and there has been no meaningful impact.

Once again, the government has come to us with a bill that claims to change everything and fix everything, but in reality it does not address a real problem. Let me clarify. I am not saying that the situation is not a problem. I agree that forced marriages are a problem and that we are against them. However, the government's reaction is excessive. I am not defending the practice. I am simply thinking about the victims.

They want to deport or imprison people who practice polygamy, but that would victimize the women and children. The fact is that most of the people who practice polygamy are men, but the women, who do not always know it, end up suffering the consequences of this crime. Basically, I am worried about these children and these women.

Some of the measures in this bill are already in the Criminal Code. For example, we know that polygamy is not allowed in Canada, and that makes sense. The same applies to forced marriages.

The NDP is opposed to the government's approach because we have a different philosophy: prevention. It is not right to make such practices a crime without considering the consequences for families, women and children. We think prevention should come first. That is why I am so proud of Motion No. 563, which was moved by my colleague, our immigration critic. This motion outlines all of the measures we need to take. Here it is:

That, in the opinion of the House, forced marriages are a crime that constitutes violence against women and consequently, the government should: (a) strongly condemn the practice; (b) increase funding to organizations working with potential or actual victims; (c) consult with women, communities, organizations, and experts to form a true picture of the issue and to identify the best ways to address it; (d) allow women with conditional permanent resident status to remain in Canada if their partners are deported due to polygamy or forced marriage; (e) invest in information programs tailored to immigrant women; (f) develop culturally appropriate training programs for service providers dealing with immigrant women such as the police and social workers, as well as officers of the Canada Border Service Agency and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; (g) restore funding to Status of Women Canada; and (h) implement the NDP’s national plan for a strategy to address violence against women.

I am proud of this motion moved by my colleague, our immigration critic, because it clearly explains our vision and our proposal. At the risk of repeating myself, the Conservatives favour criminalization while ignoring the consequences and without any prevention measures. When we talk about criminalization, it is all about a deed already done. It is about introducing punitive measures and putting people in prison.

We in the NDP believe in investing in prevention and education. It is not through bills with titles that include terms like “barbaric cultural practices”—and so many other Conservative bills—that we will promote dialogue and education. On the contrary, this shows a certain closed-mindedness.

I am not saying that the practices targeted by this bill are acceptable. On the contrary, they are completely unacceptable. However, as an elected member, it saddens me to hear the Prime Minister, some members and even ministers say things that make an entire cultural community in our society feel like it is under attack. This is not coming from me. Unfortunately, the Conservative government clearly had every intention of attacking certain cultural communities for purely partisan political purposes. It is troubling.

For that reason, and all the other reasons I mentioned earlier, I will be opposing this bill at second reading. The government should listen to what the opposition has to say, consult the experts and, above all, do its homework so that it really understands the consequences of its actions for the people it is trying to protect.

[Infrastructure, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question.

The Prime Minister reneged on Canada's signature and withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. For 10 years this government has gutted our environmental laws. Senior officials are now sounding the alarm because infrastructure projects would no longer be subject to environmental criteria, which help cities adapt to the effects of climate change.

Will the minister be clear and unequivocally promise to keep these environmental criteria?

[Infrastructure, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, senior civil servants are warning the Conservatives not to strip environmental requirements from infrastructure budgets. Scrapping these criteria would be short sighted.

Green infrastructure saves us billions in the long run by ensuring our communities can adapt to growing extreme weather events and climate change, but cabinet seems to be considering scrapping it.

Will the minister commit to retaining green infrastructure criteria in the upcoming federal budget?

[Journey to Freedom Day Act, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-219.

I will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee. However, I would like to start by explaining why I am so proud to rise today. My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry and I are the only two people of Vietnamese origin to be elected members of the House of Commons, of Parliament. For us, it is very important to remember what our parents, family members and ancestors lived through. Being able to talk about it in the House today is truly a privilege and an honour. It is a testament both to the great value we place on our origins and to Canada's openness and the fact that the Canadian people opened their arms to us by electing us and asking us to represent them.

It is therefore with great pride and gratitude that I rise today.

Bill S-219 is very short but has several aspects to it. I will read it because I want to talk about it. It has three clauses.

The first clause concerns the short title:

1. This Act may be cited as the Journey to Freedom Day Act.

The second clause, which is the core of this bill, reads as follows:

2. Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the thirtieth day of April shall be known as “Journey to Freedom Day”.

The third and final clause simply says this:

3. For greater certainty, Journey to Freedom Day is not a legal holiday or a non-juridical day.

The bill before us is a very short and simple one. As I said in French and will repeat in English, there are three clauses in the bill. The main one says:

Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the thirtieth day of April shall be known as “Journey to Freedom Day”.

Then the bill specifies:

For greater certainty, Journey to Freedom Day is not a legal holiday or a non-juridical day.

Why are we talking about April 30? Many people who had to leave their country attach considerable significance to that date.

For instance, my parents were fortunate to be here in Canada on April 30, 1975. They came here, they met here and they settled here, and I was lucky to be born here.

However, many people unfortunately had to leave their country. We all know this, thanks to the films and news reports that have been made about the Vietnam War, which left its mark not only on an entire generation of Vietnamese people, but also on the entire world.

Everyone is familiar with the Vietnam War. Everyone knows how much a war and the devastation it causes can affect the population and future generations. Still today, development in Vietnam lags behind because of the damage and destruction caused by the war.

I think remembering April 30 is extremely important because April 30 represents a day of commemoration. For many people in Canada and indeed around the world, April 30 is a day for people to come together. Ever since I was elected, for instance, I go to Montreal every year, which is an opportunity for me to remember my roots, my culture and the sacrifices made by many Vietnamese people.

I invite Canadians to watch the very moving speech made by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who shared her personal experience and that of her parents. I think it is quite meaningful to many people.

To some, this day signifies the end of the Vietnam War, the end of a devastating war that had tremendous repercussions for the country. To others, this day also serves as a reminder that people had to leave their country.

What is more, many commemorative events are held around April 30 in recognition of the boat people. I invite those who have yet to watch a documentary on this, to do so.

This shows the direct impact that the war had on the population and the sacrifices that people had to make to leave their country in search of a better future. Today, we feel and see the results. New generations like mine and future generations reap the benefits from the fact that people had to leave their country and learn to live in a new society that was foreign to them. Even though Vietnam was a French colony, many Vietnamese did not speak French or English. Coming to Canada meant they had to adapt and integrate.

As an elected member, I am very proud to say that I am well integrated into Canadian society. The community is very proud of all the Vietnamese people who have achieved success at all levels, such as earning a living by becoming a doctor, for example. I am generalizing a bit. We also have writers, such as Kim Thúy, who is very famous in Quebec and around the world. A great number of people have made very significant contributions.

I read the bill and it is very simple. Unfortunately, it will not contribute anything new. We could have taken this opportunity to find solutions to current problems. I will come back to that later. I want to mention that there was lack of consultation and debate, and therefore transparency, in the other chamber's process. A great deal of attention was paid to what some people said, but not to what others had to say. I hope that the House of Commons committee will be more open-minded and that we will have a more fulsome debate, because it is important to have this debate.

As I mentioned, I received some 300 emails about this bill. Unfortunately, this bill is divisive at a time when we should be uniting the community. The bill has received criticism from all quarters. Some say that it does not go far enough and that it is not critical enough of the current government. Others, especially those in the business community who are dealing with Vietnam, say that it is not necessarily beneficial to negotiations and that it would be detrimental to discussions with the Government of Vietnam. As this is a Conservative bill from the other place, it is unfortunate that the approach used is not one that brings people together, not just Canadians, but also all Vietnamese Canadians, whether they are the children of boat people or those who were forced to leave their country. Why not unite all these people?

I am proud of the NDP position because we are talking about human rights. It is time to do so. I regret that the bill does not do enough to bring people together.

I look at what the younger generation has done. A friend of mine, Glenn Hoa has created “generation legacy”. Last year thousands of dollars were raised in order to invest in the Vietnamese boat people museum in Ottawa. It was a way for the community to get together behind a project that was unifying, that looked at the heritage of Canadians of Vietnamese origin or even that of the Vietnamese people who came here. It was a way for us to get together; it was different generations coming together.

Unfortunately with the bill, we do not feel this. We feel it is divisive. As I said, I have received hundreds of emails, some supporting the bill and some denouncing the bill. There are many things that need to be done in order to help people in Vietnam. I think we could have done a better job.

Since it is time to negotiate with Vietnam as part of the trans-Pacific partnership, we need to advocate for human rights. Unfortunately, the government is not going in that direction. Nevertheless, I understand that the important thing is to commemorate what happened to the people who had to leave their country. That is why I am going to support the bill at this stage.

[Rail Transportation, March 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has announced some new rail safety standards. We were expecting a more ambitious plan and more stringent standards. Regulations for brakes on tank cars were completely ignored. Furthermore, the rail cars involved in the accidents in Ontario, which the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has said are not strong enough, will still run on our rails until 2023.

How does the minister plan on reassuring the public, when we will have to live with unsafe rail cars for at least another eight years?

[Rail Transportation, March 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are worried about the derailments of oil tankers. The number of cars transporting oil is increasing exponentially, and since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy both the Transportation Safety Board of Canada and the Auditor General have criticized the government for its lack of oversight.

What was the government's response? It hired one more inspector. That is the only additional rail safety inspector hired since 2013. Does the minister think that that is enough?