Debates of Dec. 11th, 2023

Justice and Human Rights

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I will challenge the member on that again, and I will challenge you to correct the member because the Conservative Party has no stance on that issue. It has never stated any stance on such matter—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I want to make sure it is very clear on the record that the Conservative Party of Canada filibustered a study in the foreign affairs committee for 16 weeks so that it would not have to study women's reproductive rights. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is entering into debate.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, they are saying that what I said is false. The member I mentioned, the member for Peace River—Westlock, did a Facebook Live video when the Roe v. Wade decision was overturned. He said that it was excellent news, that this was his mission in politics and that this kind of decision should be made in Canada. If members are saying that it is not true, they should go watch the video. It is still online.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are getting into a debate about what was seen or not seen.

I will let the member for Timmins—James Bay ask a question.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the conversation. I was really shocked that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan took this discussion of the Taliban and then tried to talk about support for Ukraine.

We are not going to say who was not in the House, but in the House I saw the leader of the Conservative Party, the foreign affairs critic and the defence critic sending a very clear message. They stood up to vote against Operation Unifier. They stood up to vote against Ukraine in the same week the right-wing in the United States shut down Zelenskyy, and at the same time that Orban in Hungary, and there are certainly Conservatives over there who are friends of Orban, has been undermining Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people.

What does my colleague think about the Conservatives having the gall to pretend that they are supporting Ukraine, when the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has called out the Conservative leader and his party—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the president of Ukraine came to Canada in September and signed a Canada-Ukraine modernization trade agreement. A couple months later, we had that legislation brought forward to the House. Games were being played. Ultimately, the Conservative Party of Canada voted against the trade agreement. Now it is filibustering the trade agreement.

Over the marathon votes, the Conservatives, on three separate occasions, voted against supports to Ukraine. I say shame on them, from the leadership down, for not supporting Ukraine—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to answer the member's question, and then I am going to ask him a favour.

The reason we are debating this and why it is so important for this to be debated today, as I read in my previous intervention, is that women who are stuck in Pakistan and are being forced to return to Afghanistan will be eliminated. Those are their words, not mine.

There are a number of Afghans who are supposed to come to Canada as part of the programs that were put in place along with the SIM program. We are now hearing rumours that the program is frozen and people's application processes are not being moved forward. Canada said it was going to help these people. There are lots of Afghans, whom I know personally and through my connections, who are still stuck in Afghanistan, and now they are in limbo.

We are also coming up on the one-year anniversary of one of the former Afghan women MPs being murdered by the Taliban regime. We have had an all-party team working for over a year, and how many of those women MPs are here?

I ask the member to use his influence as a parliamentary secretary to ensure these Afghans, especially these Afghan women and children, are given the opportunity to get to Canada and are not frozen in limbo where they face certain death if they get sent back to Afghanistan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate member's mentioning the contributions to the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, and all those who have served. There are about 40,000 Canadian soldiers that were there, from what I understand.

If the Conservative Party really felt this was the type of debate that should be taking place, it could do it through a take-note debate or an emergency debate. There are different forms that would have enabled the debate to take place. The member himself could have been speaking to this and introducing it. That might have given it a bit more credibility.

There is absolutely no doubt that we, as a government, had no idea the opposition was going to be bringing forward this concurrence debate. That is why I believe this is another example of the Conservatives using concurrence motions as a way to frustrate government legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it would be nice if the government would help out in this way, but the member is admitting that they do not know the rules of the House and that they did not know what was on the agenda. Therefore, I am rising on a point of order to say that this is the normal business of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is indeed normal procedure, but the hon. member was referencing the specific report being brought to concurrence.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean has the floor.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thought this moment would never come. It may come up from time to time.

I was not expecting to give a 20-minute speech about this. I had prepared a speech on another committee report, but in the end, things changed.

In my opinion, the Conservatives may have slept too much. Looking back on the votes that were held during the 30-hour voting marathon, the members who voted the least were certainly not members of the other parties. I do not know what they were thinking. They sort of remind me of Icarus. Do my colleagues know the story of Icarus, the man who wanted to fly the fastest and highest? Before long, he burned his wings. When he got close to the sun, all of a sudden his wings caught fire and he quickly fell back to Earth. I get the impression that is what happened here.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am not seeing the relevance of some of the comments my colleague made on voting and who was here or not. We know from the record, and it is public record—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I do not think the hon. member said who was here or not here, just who got sleep and who did not get sleep.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, maybe I got it wrong after all. Perhaps they did not get enough sleep, if they are raising points of order like that.

As I was saying, the story of Icarus is very interesting. He was so sure of himself that he thought he had come up with an excellent solution, but in the end, he found himself in trouble and landed on his head very quickly.

We saw this again in the 30-odd hours we spent voting. All I saw was a Liberal caucus that had not been united at all since the fall suddenly come together. I saw the ammunition given to the other parties in the House when I looked at exactly who was going to vote on which economic measures. It really reminds me of Icarus.

This brings me to the motion before us today, which also reminds me a little of Icarus. This motion gives me a chance to talk about human rights and what has been discussed in various committees, not only the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but also the committee that deals with international human rights, specifically, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Special Committee on Afghanistan. Human rights have been discussed extensively. That topic was the foundation of all the conversations we had in those committees.

I want to come back once again to one of the first decisions the Leader of the Opposition made when he was elected leader of the Conservative Party. The decision had to do with human rights. How did I come to that conclusion? It was easy. As vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, I saw the change in the Conservative membership of that committee following the election of the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton. Suddenly, I saw the member for Peace River—Westlock become vice-chair of the subcommittee. I looked into him because I like to be thorough in my work. I want to know my new committee colleagues. I did my research and I realized to my astonishment and disappointment, but mostly astonishment, that the member had made a live video just after getting off a plane, when he found out that the U.S. Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade, making access to abortion in the United States more difficult and, in some cases, a criminal offence. This is what I was asking my Liberal colleague about just now. The Conservative member applauded that ruling and said, in that same video, that access to abortion was the worst human rights tragedy in Canada.

Here I am, faced with a person who is entitled to his opinions, but I know full well that they are light years away from Quebec's values in terms of abortion access and rights. This member was appointed by the leader of the official opposition to sit on this committee. What is more, the leader made him what he calls his shadow minister, meaning the opposition's critic on the matter. That means that if the Conservative Party had come to power, this guy could probably and possibly have ended up either as minister for international aid and development or as parliamentary secretary. This is a guy who says that access to abortion is the worst human rights tragedy in Canada. That is important.

I want to come back to this motion telling us that we need to talk about human rights. Of course everyone agrees with that. I will read it:

That the committee report to the House that it firmly denounces the Taliban and rejects any recognition or legitimization of their control over Afghan territory.

No one is raising their hand to say they disagree. I will continue:

In particular, the committee denounces the Taliban system of gender discrimination...

Now maybe a Conservative MP will stand up and oppose the motion.

No? Good. I will continue:

...systemic violence targeting minority communities...

No one has anything to say about that either? All right then.

...reprisals against former members of the Afghan National Security and Defence Forces, Forces, attacks on freedom of the press, and other violations of fundamental human rights. The committee believes that the Taliban must remain a listed terrorist organization.

We are going to spend three hours debating this response and the tabling of the report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, even though everyone is in agreement.

I mentioned Icarus. Unfortunately, they are bringing about their own downfall. I have to talk about human rights in connection with a motion that everyone agrees on. I have no choice but to continue. This will take however long it takes, because that is how they want it. It was quite a job just to find out which committee report we were going to talk about today. As I said, there may be a minor breakdown in professionalism. That is so unlike them. I am not sure what is going on. Maybe they feel like they made a big mistake last week and that they keep making more. That is overconfidence. Overconfidence is always dangerous in life, whether at work or in sport. I have played team sports, and I can vouch for the fact that overconfidence is very dangerous. In the end, it can cost the team the game. However, I do not want to go overboard in giving advice. I will leave them to reflect on their own behaviour.

This report from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights does contain something worthwhile. It is important to note that this is a result of what happened on the Special Committee on Afghanistan. When the committee began its work, we quickly realized that Canadian humanitarian organizations were unable to do their work because they were violating Canada's Criminal Code. I asked a non-governmental organization, or NGO, about that for the first time on February 7, 2022. I was told that, because the Criminal Code prohibits the funding of terrorism, which is a good thing, Canadian NGOs were unable to send humanitarian aid, such as medication and food, to vulnerable populations. The Criminal Code made it difficult to send such aid.

We set about putting pressure on the Liberal government. On that point, I should mention that I had a lot of help from the opposition parties, the NDP and the Conservative Party, to put pressure on the government, which was far too slow to act. It eventually introduced Bill C-41, which we passed. This legislation is not perfect; in fact, it is quite imperfect. I found this out last week during a committee meeting, when I asked NGO representatives about it. They told us that it had improved things a little, but that it was far from perfect and that certain aspects of the bill still prevent them from being able to do their work normally.

We talked about this in early February 2022, and the government introduced the bill a year later, in the winter of 2023. It was still at committee in the spring. All that happened more than 18 months after the UN had taken action with resolution 2615, which called for countries to amend their criminal codes so they could send humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and to adapt their laws accordingly. That UN motion, as well as the motions we moved in the various committees regarding humanitarian aid and the fundamental rights of vulnerable populations, were effective.

As usual, the Liberal government is very slow to act and sometimes spends too long studying issues. Unfortunately, this is having a real impact on the ground. Some people suffered because Bill C‑41 was not in force. Children died of starvation because humanitarian aid could not be delivered. This was documented in articles in reputable newspapers all over the world. Some families had to sell some of their children because they could not afford to feed them all. They had to sell some of their children, even though Canada had a moral obligation towards these people because it participated in operations in Afghanistan and had direct ties with Afghan interpreters, members of the Afghan security forces, and politicians in Afghanistan, especially women politicians. Canada had created programs to help women successfully participate in politics in Afghanistan.

Canada ensured that women can get involved in democratic public discourse in Afghanistan. When Canada left, it left these women to fend for themselves. They had to face the Taliban. If there is one thing that upsets the Taliban, it is a woman who stands up and takes part in democratic debate in her own country.

I think the Taliban's biggest fear is to see a woman become empowered and participate in democratic debate in Afghanistan. To the Taliban, that is the devil incarnate.

Canada had a moral duty to these people and it did not live up to that duty. It arrived a year too late with an imperfect bill, which we supported because we believe that a step forward is always good for the people that will benefit. However, this is not right. Canada is neither an economic nor military power. Canada has a history of leadership in international human rights. That is coming from a Quebec sovereignist. I am thinking of Lester B. Pearson's peacekeepers. To be fair to my Conservative friends, I will also mention Brian Mulroney, who contributed to the fall of the apartheid regime.

These things happened. Let us also consider Jean Chrétien, who had a major impact on friendly countries in Africa. That is part of Canada's history. I imagine that these actions were largely driven by the values of Quebeckers, or I hope so. We have always been there. Humanitarianism started in Quebec, and Canada followed suit. So much the better if we can lead our Canadian friends in the right direction. We do it often. The child care system is just one example. I am not saying that Quebeckers are better than Canadians. No one is better or worse; we are simply different. That seems the best way to put it.

The only thing I held against my friend Jean Chrétien was the fact that he would say that Canada was “the bestest country in the world”. What country is second best, sixth best or eighth best? I do not know. I think there is no such thing as a best or worst people, a best or worst country. There are only different countries. Quebec is one of them and, one day, it will have everything it needs to become an independent nation. Perhaps I am getting off topic. Maybe it is because my Conservative friends added to the confusion today about the various motions we had to debate. I think it has affected me. I have to speak about a motion for 20 minutes when I only learned I had to talk about the motion two minutes before I took the floor.

Everyone agrees that we cannot let the Taliban continue to ensure that human rights are not upheld in Afghanistan. We cannot allow our humanitarian organizations, our NGOs, not to help them. That sums up what was said in the various committees, including the justice committee. Yes, we must keep the Taliban on the list of terrorist entities, and we must also allow our NGOs to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground there, because they know the ground, they have contacts and, above all, they have a big heart and want to help people. We can only applaud them for that. They need more support, and Canada should give them more. The government should give them more. They should not be overjoyed when access to abortion is restricted.

I will now be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

I think we both have an affinity for Greek mythology. I really enjoyed that part of his speech. We both also value the evolution of human rights domestically, in Quebec and in Canada, as well as the influence Canada has had around the world.

I would like to ask the following question. Although our Conservative colleagues say they support human rights, it seems to me that they would rather choose which rights to extend to women, and may not fully support allowing them certain rights. I would like my colleague to tell us a little more about that.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do find that disappointing, because I have a lot of friends in the Conservative Party. They know me. I am someone who likes to work with others. I have friends in every party. I am in politics to advance issues. I think that is easier when we work together and set partisanship aside.

However, there are fundamental values that push us to represent the people in our ridings, values that we cannot set aside. Those values are what motivate us to get up every morning to go to work for our constituents, our families and our children. When I hear that some members of the House are celebrating the fact that women's freedom to choose is being undermined, I cannot help but go to bed disappointed when thinking about all that.

I know that I, personally, will not be able to change those colleagues' minds, but I think that the friends that I have in the Conservative Party, those with whom I get along well, could have a little talk with their friends to ask them to think for a moment before they undermine women's right to choose.

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

Madam Speaker, we are here debating an important motion about human rights in Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover. A couple of members have said we should not be debating this. We do not need to be debating this for the full three hours. Those members have proceeded to give lengthy speeches on the subject. Of course, those members know the process is if they think it should maybe collapse on an item, then the most effective way they bring about that result is by not speaking to it. I am referring in particular to my friend across the way from Winnipeg North.

My friend from the Bloc, of course, found ways of connecting all kinds of other issues into the discussion, as sometimes happens in this place, but I do want to ask him a question about Afghanistan. I would like to hear his views on what we in Canada can do to concretely promote democratic development in Afghanistan. I think some people look at the situation and they feel a certain kind of fatalism. I believe there are still things we can do and we need to do to stand with the people of Afghanistan, that we cannot give up on the cause of freedom and democracy.

What does he think that Canada can concretely do to support the people of Afghanistan in their desire to realize democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy working with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I think a lot more needs to be done. One of the things we could do, and this has already been proposed at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which I am a part of, is not put a cap on the number of Afghan immigrants we welcome. The special measures program for Afghan refugees currently plans to welcome 40,000 Afghans.

Everyone agreed in committee. At least, the opposition parties did. The motion was moved by the NDP, and the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois supported it. The Liberals were somewhat receptive.

Earlier, my colleague talked about female members of Afghanistan's parliament whom we have been trying to evacuate from that country for a year. We have worked very hard together on that file, but it is still not resolved. We think that the government is too slow to bring these people to safety on Canadian or Quebec soil.

Once they are here, these people could use their voice because they are the best people to restore democracy in Afghanistan. We must help them come here so that they can be safe and deliver their speeches and be heard internationally. That is how they could help their country.

That is one way to help rebuild democracy in Afghanistan and ensure that the Taliban leaves the region for once and for all. I think that is one possible solution.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague and hear his thoughts. We are in this place right now having this debate. We were not told that this was coming. This has been a bit of a surprise for us. We are trying to think of ways that we could help the people of Afghanistan. I do not think there is a single person in this place who does not think that we should do everything we possibly can, particularly for the women and girls of Afghanistan.

I have to say, though, that I have the list here of the votes that we had over the 30-some hours that we stayed in the House voting because the Conservative Party thought that was a useful thing to do. While they are here telling us that it is vitally important that we support Afghanistan, three times for millions of dollars they voted against supporting international development and foreign affairs efforts. On one hand they are taking away the money that people in Afghanistan need. In Afghanistan right now, we have people who are severely food insecure, who need help, yet we have the Liberals with Bill C-41 making it very difficult to deliver that aid, and we have the Conservatives literally voting to stop it. In fact, they ran in the last election on cutting foreign aid by 25%. How do—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean the opportunity to respond.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not easy because, on the one hand, the Liberals are not helping us with Bill C‑41, and on the other hand, we have people who want to cut back on international aid.

Canada currently spends 0.3% of its GDP on international aid. The UN is asking for 0.7% from countries like Canada. The average for OECD countries is around 0.42% or 0.43%.

Right now, under this government, our spending is lower than it was under the Harper government. Back then, it was at 0.32%. The current government is the one that has been the stingiest when it comes to devoting a percentage of its GDP to promoting international human rights.

When my colleague tells me that the Conservatives are not consistent and that they are not credible when they talk about international aid, we need only look at the votes held during those 30 hours. When I talked about Icarus at the beginning of my speech, this is the proof. I now have ammunition. The next time they talk about international aid, I can name all the members who voted against it. They really have no credibility.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his excellent speech on human rights, my colleague talked about a woman's right to make decisions about her body, to have an abortion if she so chooses.

As my colleague mentioned, among the Conservatives, there are some who applaud what happened in the United States and the fact that they took away women's rights. As we also know, when the subject of abortion has come up, we have seen Conservative committee chairs in tears, unable to chair their committee's work.

Conservatives are uncomfortable with that. They are standing up and raising points of order. They do not seem to have a position. They are not unanimous. There does not seem to be consensus on the issue of women's rights.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether, in his opinion, in Quebec and within the Bloc Québécois, there is a consensus on this issue.