Debates of Dec. 13th, 2022

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech made by the member across the aisle. It was a thoughtful speech, full of nuance, insight and goodwill. It was good to hear. Sometimes, members on the other side of the House say all sorts of ultra-partisan things, and it is difficult to find something interesting that we can build on. That is not the case today, and I appreciate that.

I like to see such a proactive attitude. The government wants to find a way to improve the situation in Tibet. I give it credit for that.

I heard my colleague refer to what is happening here in Canada. He said that we have an interesting division of powers and that the government is not entirely centralized. I found that interesting, although we cannot in any way compare the situation in Tibet with the situation in Quebec. I do not completely agree with my colleague on this.

How could he do more for Quebec so that Canada is an example for China on the international stage?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the contribution of the member opposite.

With the Constitution of Canada, which dates back over 150 years, and with the changes that were made regarding the province that my colleague represents and all the other provinces, we have a way of managing the federation that gives the provinces a lot of power. That is what the Tibetans are looking for.

For example, Quebec has immigration rights. That is the kind of control and power that Tibet is looking for. It wants the same thing for its economy, culture and religion. If Canada can be example to the rest of the world in conflicts like this, it will help to resolve problems in a non-violent manner.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I start today I would also like to express my deep condolences to the friends and family members of our colleague, Jim Carr. As members can see, I sit very close to where the member sat. I know he was a strong parliamentarian, and I thank his family for sharing him with us. I am very happy we were able to pass his private member's bill before he passed.

I would also like to express my condolences to those who worked quite closely with Mr. Carr in this place. I know many members, both of his own caucus and from all parties, were very close colleagues of his, and I give my sympathies to them as well.

Today we are speaking about Tibet and the challenges the Tibetan people are facing. I welcome every opportunity to speak about human rights, to speak about the rights of people around the world and to speak about the rights that are being denied to the people of Tibet. It is vitally important that as parliamentarians in Canada we are constantly aware of the human rights abuses that are taking place around the world and that we use whatever power and voice we have to raise those human rights abuses.

I was a member of the foreign affairs committee that did this recent study on Tibet and the Sino-Tibet dialogue, and I heard testimony from numerous people who told us about the challenges the Tibetan people are facing, so I am very happy to be able to stand and to speak about the need for continued dialogue and the need for Canada to continue to support the Tibetan people.

We are seeing the Chinese Communist party perpetrating human rights abuses among a number of different groups and a number of different people. There are definitely parallels, when we see the suppression of rights of the Tibetan people, with regard to the Uighur people. There are definitely parallels when we see how the Chinese government is shutting down dissidents and silencing dissidents within its population.

Therefore, of course the opportunity to speak to this is very important, and I know others before me have said this, but I want to also acknowledge that December 10 was international Human Rights Day. It is a day to acknowledge the importance of protecting human rights and a day to recognize those who defend human rights at risk to their own safety.

I am going to give a few examples of people who have done that. In the Philippines, Cristina Palabay has suffered serious threats from her government after she testified before our parliamentary committee, the international human rights subcommittee. The government is threatening her; her life is at risk; there are risks to her of being red-tagged by the Philippine government.

In Iran, the IRGC is executing protesters and arresting artists, human rights defenders and all those protesting for freedom. Semiramis Babaei is one of those artists. I know her cousin, a Canadian citizen, is deeply concerned about her safety.

In China, Huseyin Celil, a Uighur activist, has been illegally incarcerated for 16 years. For 16 years his wife and children have not heard from him and have not known how he is. Even now, Dong Guangping, who spoke against the Chinese government, is missing, and his family, his wife and daughter who live in Canada, have no idea of his whereabouts.

In Russia, we have Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has been imprisoned because he spoke out against Putin's brutal attack on Ukraine.

This is just a handful of individuals who have risked and continue to risk their lives for democracy, for human rights and for justice in their countries, and if my standing in this place and saying their names can protect them, help them, amplify their calls for justice and ensure human rights are protected around the world, then today and every day, every one of us must say their names: Cristina Palabay, Huseyin Celil, Dong Guangping, Vladimir Kara-Murza.

However, as we come together today to talk about the challenges that human rights defenders face, as we come together to talk about the challenges that the Tibetan people face, I want to raise some concerns I have about the process by which this came forward.

I have concerns that there are individuals within this place who are using tools to bring forward debate not because the debate is something that is pressing at the moment, but rather to stop the actual work of this place. I am concerned about it because we are seeing the exact same thing happening in the foreign affairs committee.

The foreign affairs committee did this important work to look at what is happening in Tibet, to examine the need for further Sino-Tibetan dialogue and to continue that dialogue, and to have Canada have a voice to press the Chinese government to act in a more ethical, more important manner. However, that same committee can no longer work. We are being prevented from doing very important work, and I will give members some examples of that.

Right now, we have yet to release a report on what is happening in Ukraine with the illegal invasion by Russia of Ukraine and the attacks on its people, on civilians, the horrendous violence that is being perpetrated against the Ukrainian people, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, an ally of Canada, that is being done by the Russian Federation. We have not released a study on that to Parliament. We have not tabled the findings of our study, because we have not been able to get that through the foreign affairs committee.

We have a study on Pakistan. Everybody in this House should be deeply concerned about the response to the horrendous and horrific flooding in Pakistan. We should be tabling a report on the study we did on the flooding in Pakistan, on the way our development dollars are spent and the way the government is using development dollars to help people around the world. We cannot do that, because our foreign affairs committee is not able to get that work done.

I am deeply concerned about what is happening in Iran. As I mentioned in my statement, we are hearing horrendous stories of protesters being executed. People who are simply standing up for their human rights, simply asking for the right to live in their country, for the right to democracy, for the right to justice, are being executed in their countries right now. As a foreign affairs committee, we have an obligation to be examining what is happening in Iran and recommending actions for our government to take. That is vital work for the foreign affairs committee to be doing.

I, in fact, brought forward a study that I think is extremely important for the work that we do as a country, on looking at our sanctions regime. Yesterday, I spoke to Bill S-8 about the sanctions regime, about how our sanctions regime is not as effective, not as strong and not as capable as it should be. I brought a study forward at the foreign affairs committee, and we were meant to study it during the fall session, but of course that also did not happen.

Finally, I would also point out that since the spring, since April, the foreign affairs committee has attempted to look at the reproductive rights of women in every corner of the world. This, for me, is probably one of the most important issues we face. This is something that implicates almost every single human being, certainly 50% of the world. We know tens of thousands of women die each year because they do not have access to reproductive health care.

We know that what we are seeing south of us in the United States is very problematic. In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has made a decision to take away the rights of women. That has implications that ripple around the world. As the foreign affairs committee, we have an obligation to examine what those impacts are.

We have an obligation to bring forward any recommendations that will help women around the world access their right to bodily autonomy and health care, but we are unable to do that right now, to be honest, because of one member of the foreign affairs committee. I will not even say it is the party, because I have worked very well with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and I have worked extremely well with the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. However, there is one member within our committee of 11 who has completely destroyed the ability of the foreign affairs committee to do any meaningful work.

I want us to think about that for a minute. I want us to contemplate the fact that the rules of this place allow it. They allow one member to take over a committee and impose his will on that committee. However, is that democracy? Is that something in which our constituents, those of Edmonton Strathcona, or in other ridings in Alberta or around the country, would like to see their members engage? Do they want us to work collaboratively to find solutions, to find ways for us to go forward, or do they want to listen to somebody speak for hours and hours on nonsense? These are some of the questions I have for my constituents.

Speaking of my constituents, today I was supposed to have a very important meeting with the Alberta Federation of Labour. Of course, we all have very busy lives. We have our time in the House, but we also have other obligations that we undertake. One of the most-important issues for me right now is helping Albertan workers transition to a future economy, so I meet as often as I can with the Alberta Federation of Labour. I know it is at the forefront, representing the needs and rights of workers with respect to transitioning to a future-facing economy. However, I am not at that meeting today because I am in the House, again, because the Conservatives are trying to prevent the House from doing the work we had determined we would do. I have concerns about that as well.

One of the things that most bothers when I look at this is that, as a parliamentarian, I am not part of the government; I am part of the opposition. The opposition has an obligation to hold the government to account, to watch what it does, to evaluate that, to suggest changes and to call it out when we do not agree with the actions it has taken. When a member of the Conservative Party filibusters the work we are trying to do, it means that nobody is keeping an eye on the government's actions. We are not doing our job as parliamentarians to hold the government accountable.

I know that my colleagues within the Liberal Party, within the government, do not always necessarily welcome our advice, but I think they recognize the value of having a democracy where we work together on building consensus and making laws and regulations stronger. I think we all know that is the best way for us to work together.

This is all to say that I have deep concerns about why I am now giving a speech in the House on something that is interfering with some of the business of the day, which we thought we would be engaging in today.

However, I do not want to, in any way, take away from the fact that the foreign affairs committee did a study on what was happening in Tibet, and it is a very important study. I was very happy to take part in that. I was very happy to table that study to the House of Commons and have the House and the government respond to it. I was very happy to see that Tibet was included in the Indo-Pacific strategy and that the government brought forward that strategy. However, my worries on the rationale for the debate at this time still stands.

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

Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect for my colleague, her implication that this concurrence debate is interfering with the business of the House seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the fact that there was extensive dialogue among party House leaders about negotiating the ending period of this week and how we would wrap up before Christmas, in particular how this concurrence debate would take place. Sometimes concurrence motions are put forward with more limited notice, but this was discussed and will proceed according to an agreed upon framework.

I would respectfully encourage the member to maybe seek some feedback on that from other members about the conversations that took place. I will leave that for the member's consideration.

She did not really speak about Tibet in her speech. Of course there are many human rights issues, I agree, but I wonder if she wants to take this opportunity to share her thoughts specifically on the issue of Tibet and on the political status of Tibet, as the motion seeks to invite the House to comment on that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, there were discussions among the parties around our not being interested in doing this debate at this time, that it was not appropriate. However, that does not seem to have stopped the Conservative Party.

Certainly, when I raised the issue of Tibet at the beginning of my speech, I know that some members were not in the House at that time. I would never dare name who was not in the House when I was speaking about this and things that were important to me with regard to Tibet. However, I have stood many times in the House to ask and plead that we not politicize human rights, that we in fact look at human rights as something that we have a moral obligation to fight for and that we have a moral obligation to fight for human rights in Canada and around the world equally.

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

Madam Speaker, to pick up on my colleague's last comments in regard to human rights' advocates and the questions I asked earlier. There are very strong advocates on all sides of the House on the issue of human rights. I think of individuals like Irwin Cotler, who has been a powerful advocate not only within Canada but internationally.

Could she provide her thoughts with respect to the strong leadership role that the House of Commons can play in the world today? That is one of the reasons why we should try to depoliticize the issue of human rights as much as possible.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, there have been some really incredible leaders in the House of Commons who have fought for human rights. I as a New Democrat often think of Paul Dewar and Hélène Laverdière and the work they did on human rights.

I have to be honest, though. I stand in this place knowing that many of the members of my caucus have fought for human rights. The member for Winnipeg Centre, for example, has been a tireless advocate for indigenous women and the rights of indigenous people in our country. While we do have a long history of fighting for human rights in this place, that history continues with some extremely strong voices that we have in this place right now. It is vitally important to depoliticize that and for us all to move in the same direction.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Her comments are always insightful.

I would like to get back to China and Tibet. This morning, we are talking about protecting the religious and language rights of Tibetans, who are facing the People’s Republic of China, a vast empire. We are still wondering how to deal with China. What can Canada do to influence China?

It feels that the opposite is happening, that China is interfering in our affairs. Recently, we heard that in Toronto there were police service stations controlled by China. That is something. A Chinese spy who worked for Hydro-Québec, an immense Quebec infrastructure, was exposed. That is significant.

The Prime Minister of Canada had dinner with members of the Chinese community in Toronto and, a few days later, certain members of that community were granted approval to operate a new bank. It seems that China has a lot of influence on Canada, but what can we do to turn the tables, especially in the case of Tibet, which we are currently discussing?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question and a difficult one. I do not pretend there are easy answers to this, because we do have the need to work with China. We need to work with China on issues around climate change. We need to work with China on issues around trade and health care, those sorts of things. However, there is an opportunity for us to raise our voice and identify when human rights abuses are being attacked.

Canada can work with its allies. We can develop greater relationships with countries in the region. We can develop greater relationships with like-minded democracies. Working with those democracies, collectively we can express our concerns. We can raise issues with the current actions being taken by governments like the Chinese government.

Even when we look at a massive economy like India, the Modi government is committing human rights abuses against religious minorities. Canadians have an obligation. We want to continue to work with India, but we do have an obligation to call those things out.

With regard to interference on Canadian soil, every member of the House should be deeply concerned with that. We should be given as much transparency and ability as we can for us to do our job with regard to that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work at both the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship.

There are multiple levels or areas where this issue can be brought up. With respect to this motion, the content related to it and the human rights issue for Tibetans, could this be brought up at the foreign affairs committee or in the Canada-China relations committee?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sit on three committees. The third is the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It would be an excellent place for us to look at the rights of the Tibetan people.

I also sit on the Canada-China committee, which is another opportunity for us to look at this issue. Of course, there is the foreign affairs committee, but unfortunately the foreign affairs committee is no longer able to do this work. It is currently being filibustered, because one member of the Conservative Party does not want to speak about women's rights and does not think the rights of women warrant a study.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona has been speaking up time and time again on women's rights, yet we see the Conservative Party is against basic reproductive freedoms. Its members are politicizing issues of human rights elsewhere, targeting other countries, yet it is them who have shut down committees on addressing fundamental rights of women in Canada.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about the Conservative Party being so committed to denying basic reproductive rights to women. What does it say about the party today?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one the biggest questions I have with regard to this is that if members of the Conservative Party are so staunchly against providing reproductive health care to women around the world, one would think they would have the bravery or the moral fortitude to stand and defend that position. If this is something they truly believe, one would expect they would want to have a study on it so they could bring forward their beliefs. Unfortunately, they do not want to even do that. They will not defend their beliefs; they will just filibuster so we cannot do the study.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

In fact, unless I am mistaken, this is the second report. The report was therefore adopted several months ago, after a meeting with the Rinpoche, the civil leader of the Tibetan administration in India.

Although our Tibetan friends continually repeated that China has no historical claim to the territory of Tibet and that demands for Tibetan independence continue to be legitimate and relevant, they are willing to enter into negotiations with the People's Republic of China. They are willing to find middle ground so that the Tibetan people in the People’s Republic of China can find a way to flourish without being subject to the “sinicization” policy that has been accelerating at a brutal pace since the 1950s.

This report was adopted unanimously by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and should have been adopted unanimously here in the House as well. Why then are we debating a subject that we all agree on? Why must we question the appropriateness of ratifying the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development? It is simply because some political parties keep reports in their back pocket so they can use them, not to debate the substance of the issue, but for dilatory purposes, to delay the House’s work.

We should have had a debate or at least adopted the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development a long time ago, but here we are many months later, right before Christmas, debating that report. The House directs its own work, so we could very well have simply decided, by mutual consent, to unanimously adopt this report. We would have fully supported the House concurring in this report, which I think is important and which calls for negotiation rather than confrontation. How can we oppose negotiating? By force of circumstance, we must always be open to negotiation.

Tibetans, who have established, legitimate rights to their independence, are now saying that, if they have to deal with what they have been dealing with since the Chinese invasion in the 1950s, they might as well be realistic about it and try to arrive at an arrangement. How can anyone be against virtue and apple pie? We would have liked to see this report adopted unanimously without debate, but the Liberals and the Conservatives are engaged in some sort of procedural guerilla warfare and, to be honest, I find that extremely harmful.

My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona mentioned this a few moments ago: The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, after being paralyzed for almost two months in May and June on the issue of women's reproductive health, is paralyzed yet again. The Liberals are not leading the way when it comes to completing and finalizing two reports that were almost finished, one on the floods in Pakistan and the other on the situation in Ukraine. I will repeat this simply to drive home how people are setting aside important issues to engage in a catfight, which is totally unacceptable. These reports are about the floods in Pakistan that claimed the lives of hundreds of victims and about the situation in Ukraine; I do not think we need to count the number of victims this conflict claims every day. Rather than taking the 10, 15 or 20 minutes needed to finalize the two reports, the Liberals, who knew very well how the Conservatives were going to react, decided to set the reports aside and focus once again on women's reproductive health.

Let me make myself clear: I think women's reproductive health is extremely important. Women the world over end up in extreme poverty trying to get an abortion with what limited means are available to them, if they survive at all. The Liberal government, which calls its foreign policy feminist, is therefore obligated to openly, directly and uncompromisingly address the issue of women's reproductive health around the world. We, on this side, happen to be feminists. We want to address this issue as soon as possible.

I have already discussed the issue with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I think that the Conservatives are open to eventually calling a ceasefire and putting this behind us. At the same time, they will be able to explain their point of view on women's reproductive health. Right now they are giving the impression that it is not an important issue and that we should not debate or discuss it. The words “contraception” and “abortion” give some Conservatives chills, so much so that they do not want to discuss the issue at all, and yet, it is a fundamental issue, and I think I know that our Conservative friends would agree to discuss it all the same.

I think that when our Liberal colleagues announced that the committee would not finalize the report on the flooding in Pakistan and the report on the situation in Ukraine, but would instead move directly on to women's reproductive rights, it was intended as an affront. Obviously, it provoked our Conservative friends and gave rise to more filibustering at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which I think is both shocking and shameful. If there is one House committee that should be as non-partisan as possible, it is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

I had the chance to reiterate this several times in committee, but now I have an opportunity to say it here in the House. As members know, I served a stint as an MP in another life, and I sat on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for a long time back then, as I do now. The importance of this idea that the committee should be one of the most non-partisan in Parliament and the House of Commons was proven throughout almost the entire 12 years I served as an MP the first time.

Ever since I came back to the House in 2019, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has been the scene of frankly disgraceful confrontations between the Liberals and the Conservatives. When the Conservatives are not blocking the committee's work, the Liberals are. Either the Conservatives block the government, or the government blocks itself.

In my 12 years as a member of Parliament, I had never experienced a time when the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as it was called at the time, before the name was changed to Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, was paralyzed not for a meeting or two, but for weeks on end, due to partisan games between our Liberal and Conservative friends.

While all this is going on, we are not finalizing the report on the flooding in Pakistan; we are not dealing with the incredibly important issue of the situation in Ukraine, where people are dying every day; and we are not even talking about the important issue of women's reproductive health.

Today we are debating a motion that should have been adopted unanimously without any debate at all. We have been debating it for two hours because the Conservatives decided that, in response to the Liberals' provocation, they would engage in this procedural guerrilla warfare that is going on at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Remember that our Conservative friends have moved 300 motions so far, enough to keep us busy until about 2075.

Will this vicious circle ever end? It makes no sense. Could we not simply sit down, talk like responsible adults, and find a way to move forward with the report on the flooding in Pakistan, finalize the report on the situation in Ukraine, and get cracking on the study on women's reproductive health as soon as possible?

At the moment, none of this is happening because the Liberals have decided to provoke the Conservatives and the Conservatives, who are no better, have decided to let themselves be provoked and react to what is happening. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is stuck in filibustering mode again, which I find shocking, as I said, and fundamentally unacceptable, intolerable even. This committee should be one of the most consensus-focused committees at the House of Commons, and it is unacceptable that it is being paralyzed by procedural bickering between the Liberals and the Conservatives. That is crazy.

I will conclude by explaining why I believe this committee is, or at least should be, one of the least partisan at the House of Commons.

The first reason is very simple. On the issue of values, internationally, aside from a few minor differences, there is very little to separate the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP on foreign affairs. Some may be surprised to hear me say such a thing, but in terms of values, we think largely alike. Apart from a few episodes, during the Stephen Harper era, for instance, I would say that Canada's foreign policy has been relatively constant since the Second World War, regardless of whether the Liberals or Conservatives formed government. In terms of values, aside from the short interlude of Stephen Harper's Conservative government, I would say that there is little distinction between the various political parties, and this affinity should be reflected in the quality and harmony of work at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. That is the first reason I think this committee is normally the least partisan. Given the situation, I would say that this is the reason it should be the least partisan.

It may be surprising to hear such a comment from a nasty old separatist, but the other reason is that Canada would do well to show the world a united front instead of appearing in disarray. My colleagues will be startled to learn that sovereignists see no benefit in making Canada look bad on the international stage. Just because we want independence for Quebec does not mean that we want Canada to be in bad shape and to come off poorly on the international stage.

I could reel off a whole list of reasons, but those are the two fundamental reasons I think that this committee should be one of the least partisan committees at the House of Commons. That is what I believe, and I am happy to reiterate it loud and clear. I ask my colleagues in the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party to put an end to the procedural bickering that is keeping the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development from doing its job.

I am dismayed and disgusted by the feeling of a job left undone. In a few hours' time, when we rise for the holidays without completing the report on the flooding in Pakistan, without completing the report on the situation in Ukraine and without starting the discussion and study on women's reproductive health, I will be ashamed.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate some of the remarks the member put on the record, and in part I agree with him. When we look at the many different political issues that we face as a House, the issues related to foreign affairs should, as much as possible, be depoliticized. I like the characterization the member has referenced.

I have had the opportunity in the past, at both the provincial and federal levels, to sit on committees that are far less partisan. I found that the most effective non-partisan discussions take place when there is a consensus versus a hard vote. The moment we start putting in hard votes, especially if it is done to make one MP look worse than another, partisanship often kicks in.

I am interested in knowing the member's thoughts on whether the foreign affairs committee should be striving to base its decisions on a consensus as opposed to a hard vote. Does the member have some opinions on that?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that my speech flows naturally on from the question that my colleague just asked.

Of course, the more consensual our decisions can be, the better. However, there is something fundamentally disturbing about the fact that, at the end of a parliamentary session, for example, Liberal members are starting to systematically filibuster to prevent the committee from adopting a report if that report is even the slightest bit critical of the government. This has forced the opposition to react unanimously, which is something that does not happen very often. On at least two occasions, the opposition unanimously presented a dissenting report.

It is very unfortunate that such a thing should happen at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. I will give a more recent example. Sometimes, everyone seems to agree, and the report seems to be acceptable to everyone. Then one of the parties, the Conservative Party to be specific, will surprise us by producing a dissenting report—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I must allow members to ask other questions. The hon. member can say more when he answers the next questions.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly enjoyed my time on the foreign affairs committee working with my colleague. I found him to be a very insightful and knowledgeable person when it came to foreign affairs.

I appreciate his comments about the committee being tied up. However, we are here today for a motion about the Sino-Tibetan dialogue. I know he said it is obvious we should pass it, but the Tibetan community is likely watching. I wonder if he would like to elaborate on the importance of this motion to that committee.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, since it was a Conservative member who asked the question, I will finish my previous reply very quickly. I will simply say that the Conservative Party surprised us by suddenly producing a dissenting report that it had never really discussed. The issues mentioned in the report were never really raised in the debates. I disapprove of that approach.

Now, to return to the question from my hon. colleague, whom I have had the great pleasure of working with on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, I would simply say that he is absolutely right. The Tibetan community in Canada certainly must be wondering why we are in this situation today. The report was adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs several months ago, but it is only now, with Christmas approaching, that we have suddenly decided to start debating it. I think that the community expects us to adopt it, so let us do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated that my hon. colleague talked about values and said there are things that should be above partisanship. Human rights is certainly one of them. I think most of us in this chamber would agree that women's rights are human rights, but not the Conservatives.

One of the fundamental issues of women's rights is the right to control their own bodies, not to have men tell them what is going to happen with their bodies, nor politicians and Conservative backbenchers, nor the church. The right of women to control their own bodies is a fundamental human right. I would think that in 2022 we would all agree on that, yet we see the Conservatives using tricks time and time again in committees to shut down important discussions on human rights because they are out to deny women their most basic right, the right to control their bodies.

What does my hon. colleague think of the values in the messages the Conservatives are sending in their attack on women's rights again and again?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his question.

As I said in my speech, I have had discussions with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on the issue and I am convinced that the Conservatives have things to say. Aside from their desire to prevent debate from taking place, they have things to say on the issue of women's reproductive health.

The more they filibuster, the more they give the impression that they are not interested in the issue or that they have no solutions to offer concerning women's reproductive health. Let us, then, move on quickly to this study and hear the Conservative Party's proposals; I am sure they have some. It cannot simply be that they do not want to talk about it. It is an extremely important problem around the world and Canada supposedly has a feminist foreign policy, so we have to move forward.

However, when the Liberals decide to take the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs hostage and thus not complete the study of the flooding in Pakistan and not complete the study of the situation in Ukraine, which would have taken barely 15 minutes, simply to box in our Conservative friends, that is the type of situation we are in. It is extremely unfortunate for everyone.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my honourable and very esteemed colleague for his very eloquent speech.

I would like to hear more from him on a contradiction that is quite surprising to members from Quebec arriving in the House of Commons. Indeed, we hear members from English Canada make utterly disgraceful statements about Bloc Québécois members, and yet we are the ones who must stand in the House to call members from both of the main parties to order. These members always act in their own interest, they play politics and get on like children. My hon. colleague for Montarville had to do it today, I have done it several times and all my colleagues do the same.

I would like to hear more from my colleague on this matter.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Terrebonne for her question, which allows me to elaborate.

I would simply say that, contrary to what our colleagues may think, from its very inception, the Bloc Québécois made a solemn commitment to respect institutions. We are not here to throw a wrench in the works. We are here to ensure that Quebec gets its share within this country as long as it is part of Canada. We are here, of course, to promote what we feel is the best solution for Quebeckers, namely independence.

We should not be seen as a threat. We may be seen as a threat but, in reality, we are conscientious members who do not do things just to make others look bad. It is very surprising for us as sovereigntists to see the Conservatives and Liberals literally behave like boors in the House of Commons and in committees when we should be working together in the fundamental interest of Canadians and Quebeckers.

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

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's sincerity. I do not always agree with the particulars he notes, but I think highly of his motivations and intentions.

I want to ask a question about this particular concurrence debate. This concurrence debate came up at this time as a result of conversation and negotiation among House leaders. It seems that some members were not fully briefed on those discussions, but there were discussions among House leaders. This was not brought forward as a surprise.

This report could have been adopted by unanimous consent. In fact, it was a member of the Bloc who sought unanimous consent to adopt this same motion in the previous Parliament. At the time, it was a member of the Liberal Party who refused unanimous consent, so clearly we have seen some progress given the consensus here. However, this could have been adopted by unanimous consent. An attempt by his colleague was made to do that and it was not done. That is part of the context for the debate we are having today.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think there is not much to say in response to what my hon. colleague just said.

I felt that the record needed to be set straight to remind everyone that it was the Bloc Québécois who previously proposed unanimous adoption, which we were unable to obtain.

I find it an odd coincidence that we are having to spend two hours debating a motion that should have been adopted unanimously a long time ago and that the work at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is completely paralyzed.

It may be uncharitable of me, but I cannot help but see this coincidence.