Debates of Dec. 11th, 2023

Justice and Human Rights

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

Madam Speaker, there has of course been a crystal clear consensus since the Chantal Daigle case, and I think that a woman's right to make decisions about her body is as fundamental to me as Quebec becoming a country. These are values that go together.

When I look at the other side, I see people who say they are pro-choice, yet they sit with people who are pro-life. In the Bloc Québécois caucus, that would simply be unthinkable.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in this place and represent the good people of Edmonton Strathcona.

This is a concurrence debate. We were unaware that this was coming, and so I am going to talk a little bit from the heart and tell members a few of the things that I have been thinking about, now knowing that we are to debate this motion.

As we all know in this place, in 2021, Kabul fell and the Taliban took over Afghanistan. I do not think that any one of us can really understand the horrific consequences that had on women and girls in Afghanistan and what that shift, that change, means to women and girls in Afghanistan who had been given hope for so many years, because there was the possibility for them to go to school, and for them to be teachers, doctors, lawyers or members of Parliament. The women were able to participate in their culture and their country, but in 2021, that was all taken away from them.

I have been working with members across the floor. The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound mentioned earlier that we have a cross-party group that is trying desperately to help some of those women MPs get to safety. It is unbearable how slow it is. One of the worst days I have had as a parliamentarian was waking up and finding out that one of those members of Parliament had been murdered. I know that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound feels the same as me. I know that all of us in this place are absolutely horrified that these people have not been able to be brought to safety, and so we are continuing to work with civil society, and we are continuing to work across aisles to make sure that we can bring these women to safety.

I also want to tell a bit of a positive story as well, because we often talk about women and girls in Afghanistan and the burden, trauma and absolute horror that they are facing. It has literally been described as one of the worst places on earth to be female. When I am in my riding I like to talk to classes. I think talking to students about democracy and how to be involved in democracy is very important. I think it is a big part of my job. I was a teacher before I was a politician. I was talking to a grade 6 class about how devastating it is that education had been taken away from women and girls in Afghanistan, and a little girl in the front row put up her hand and told me that she was from Afghanistan. She had gotten out of Afghanistan and come to Canada. She was in the front row, and she was studying. She was in school, and she was learning. It is stuff like this that makes me think that we have to fight so much harder.

I have a dear driver, a lovely guy, and his daughter is from Afghanistan. She came to the House last week and spent some time with us here. She sat and watched question period. I hope we were all behaving, although I must say I doubt it. However, it is a pretty important thing to know that there are girls and women from Afghanistan who are getting that education. It means a lot to me.

I do think that it is important that this place be seized with what we can do to help women and girls in Afghanistan. I do think that it is important that we talk about foreign issues and that we talk about humanitarian support. Canada is not playing the meaningful role it needs to play. We have not lived up to our obligations. We have not lived up to our reputation. We have not lived up to what we should do. Our ODA is extraordinarily low.

We are really good at saying things like “We have a feminist international assistance policy”, but we are not very good at actually implementing it. This government loves to tap its chest and say that it is a feminist government. In fact, government members keep telling us that there is a feminist foreign policy, although nobody has ever seen it.

The fact of the matter is, if we are going to be a country with a feminist international assistance policy, which I fully support and in fact I helped write the policy before I was elected, then we need to stand up for women and girls, and that does not just mean in concurrence debates. It does not just mean that when the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan decides he wants to mess with what is going on in the House he can call a concurrence debate and cry crocodile tears for Afghan women and girls.

He did not vote last week to support international development spending; he voted three times to not support international development spending. The Conservative members voted three times to not provide support for women and girls around the world. Folks have been talking to us today about the reproductive rights of women and girls. We know that, under Stephen Harper, the Conservatives cut that completely out of international development funding. I can tell the House something right now: When support for abortion is cut, it does not stop abortion; it stops safe abortion, and people die.

When I asked to do a study on women's rights in the international human rights subcommittee, the Conservative member from Peace River who sits on the committee said he was not interested in doing a study on the rights of women but would be more than happy to do a study on the rights of the preborn, not women who have been born, not women who are in our world who are struggling, but the preborn.

We all know what this is about; it is about the Conservatives' trying to change the channel from their appalling voting record. It is all about the fact that they are trying to change the channel from the fact that they voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, voted against Operation Unifier and voted against support for Ukraine. My goodness, Conservatives voted against the human rights museum. Honestly, who does that?

I was at home this weekend. It was my son's 16th birthday, and I would like to have the indulgence of the House to wish my son a very happy 16th birthday. I was sitting with my family, and members may be surprised to learn that my family is very non-political. None of them can really understand why they have a member of Parliament in the family. We are not one of those families. They all asked me about the nonsense in the House. They wanted to know what that nonsense was, when members had to sit here for 30 hours. I told them they would not believe it, but it cost $2 million for the Conservatives to do the little fundraising kerfuffle that they thought was so important. They asked me whether the Conservatives thought it was a good use of time and whether they thought it was what Canadians want from their politicians. Today is a great day for me, because New Democrats got dental care for Canadians. The Conservatives got a concurrence debate on an issue that their voting record shows they do not even care about. There is where we are at, folks.

Let us talk a little about some of the issues with regard to Afghanistan. I can talk about international development, foreign affairs and international humanitarian law all day, and I am happy to do it. At the initial time when we heard we were doing a concurrence debate, it was going to be about Bill C-41, or the aid to Afghanistan bill. Of course, the Conservatives must have made a mistake, because they do not actually care what they are bringing forward to the House. They are just trying to come up with something they could throw up as a shield. They got the wrong bill and the wrong concurrence motion. Then we had to sort of change direction a little. However, since they had initially wanted us to talk about Bill C-41, I am game. I am keen to talk about Bill C-41, which the the NDP could not support. We were the only party in the House that did not vote for the bill, because it was such a flawed piece of legislation.

Let me explain a little. International humanitarian law exists in the world, and it is very clear that organizations working on international humanitarian efforts have certain protections so they can do that work. These are the people we ask to go into the world, into the most dangerous, most heartbreaking situations that we have on the globe. They do that so they can bring food, shelter and life-saving humanitarian aid. There are international humanitarian law standards in place. Instead of using those standards the way that Australia, Europe, the U.S. and all sorts of countries did, the Liberal government found a weird convoluted route whereby it was kind of like one had to opt out. One is a terrorist until one opts out; this is basically how it works. One has to get a special pass to give humanitarian assistance.

We were able to get some carve-outs through the legislation. We were able to get some of that to work, but I sat in the committee meetings and can tell members that the people who wrote the legislation, and the members of those committees, do not understand how international development works. It does not happen in a sterile environment. It does not start on day one and end on day 12. It is not as definable as that.

The legislation that was put in place is very problematic. In fact, an article that came out on the CBC says that aid groups still say that Ottawa is hampering work in Afghanistan. We started asking for the legislation in 2021. It took years for flawed legislation to come forward. I do not know how many times I stood in the House and asked questions about it. The legislation is still not working; it is still not acting properly. Organizations are still not able to deliver the aid. Realistically, if the Conservatives actually cared about the people of Afghanistan and about getting support to Afghans, they would be more concerned about making sure that the legislation is fixed. World Vision's policy director Martin Fischer says that he is “frustrated and bewildered” that the process is taking so long. He says, “It's hard to understand why the machinery of government is having a hard time putting in place what should be a pretty straightforward...process.” The legislation is still not working. The aid is still not getting to Afghanistan.

As I mentioned it earlier, the Liberals, who have the lowest ODA, or official development assistance, that we have ever had in this country and who are abdicating their responsibility under a feminist foreign policy and a feminist international assistance policy, have brought forward legislation that is overly bureaucratic, is overly problematic and does not work. On the other side, we have the Conservatives, who, frankly, if one were to listen to them, probably do not like women very much.

This is where we are at with that. When I talk about—

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

The hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like you to ask the hon. member to withdraw that last sentence, please, because, frankly, we are very much in support of all Canadians, of all sexes, of all genders and of all sexualities.

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

That is a point of debate, and I would like the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona to try not to ascertain that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, to be fair, I really should be more clear. It is only some members of the Conservative Party who have been very clear that they are not supportive.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. It is uncommon that I have to raise a point of order on one of my own colleagues, but on the issue in which she said that Conservatives were against women, it was the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan who brought a legislator from Uganda who called for the death penalty for LGBTQ people, so I do not think it is just women who—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

We are not going to start debate.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is out of order.

I am going to ask the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay to withdraw his comment.

Please, we do not want to generate more acrimony.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a fact, but I will withdraw it.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member repeatedly spreads falsehoods on this issue. I spoke up and corrected him the last time the member spread this nonsense. It is complete nonsense. The committee in question invited an opposition member, with whom I disagree on many issues, as it happens, who very clearly said, in the context of the committee, that she did not agree with anything the member is saying.

This is completely false—

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

That is debate, and it is totally outside the question of the speech that the hon. member made.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona did clarify what she meant. We are not going to touch other subjects. All of the other subjects that were raised are out of order.

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge is rising on a point of order.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe I heard you instruct the member for Timmins—James Bay to withdraw his comment. Did he? He has withdrawn it.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, frankly, I was on the foreign affairs committee when that witness came, so I can be very clear on that, certainly.

I want to talk about international humanitarian law. We were talking about the fact that international humanitarian law means that Bill C-41 was bad legislation that was unnecessary. Sometimes we forget in this place how important it is that Canada apply international law equally around the world. It is really important because it is our reputation at stake. It is what gives us the moral ability to talk to other countries and demand better of them. Right now, we are not applying international humanitarian law or international law equally. I will give a perfect example. Right now, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois Party and, of course, the NDP are very supportive of Ukraine. I am delighted that Canada is playing such a key role in ensuring that humanitarian law is protected in that circumstance. We are using the tools that we have through the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice to ensure that Russia, which is an occupying force, is held responsible for the crimes it commits.

One of the interesting things about the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice is that they are unbiased and look at crimes committed by both sides. That is really key. They are entities that are able to use non-violent ways of resolving conflicts, and that is an important thing that we have, as a globe. However, the International Criminal Court wants, and has asked the International Court of Justice, to undertake an investigation of the crimes that are currently happening and that have happened in Israel and Palestine, and Canada is playing a spoiler in that situation. From my perspective, there is not a soul in this place who is not absolutely horrified and appalled by what Hamas did on October 7. It is a terrorist group, full stop, and the hostages it has must be released immediately, but the Government of Israel is a government, and it and Netanyahu need to be held to a different standard than a terrorist organization is. What we need to make sure we see is that the people committing crimes, on either side of the conflict, are held responsible for those crimes.

What we need more than anything, which I think no one here is going to be surprised to hear me say, is a ceasefire so the 18,000 people who have already died, the majority of them women, children and babies, are not asked to pay the price for the terrorist organization that is Hamas. When Canada applies international law standards differently, and when it looks different in Ukraine than it does in Palestine, what do members think the rest of the world sees? What do they think the world sees from Canada, and how do members think we will respond? When we pick and choose human rights, pick and choose when to apply international humanitarian law and change the channel when it is inconvenient for us, that is not the Canada we need to be. Canada needs to be so much better than that.

I look at the situation we have seen in Yemen. I know it started under Stephen Harper, but, frankly, it has been eight years, which we have heard time and time again, and the Liberals have not fixed it. Why are we still sending arms to a country that is using them on civilians? Last week at the foreign affairs committee, I asked whether we even know whether any Canadian arms are being used in Gaza, and we do not know.

We have to do better. Canada has to do better. We have to have higher standards. We have to get back to that place where we punch above our weight. We are the country that is standing up for democracy and for international law. We stand up for human rights regardless of where one is, what colour one is and what religion one practices. These are the values that Canadians expect from their government and their parliamentarians, so we need to do more.

We need to do so much more for Afghanistan, but this charade the Conservatives have brought forward is a distraction. They are trying to change the channel. I want every one of the Conservatives over there to look in the mirror and ask themselves, if they ever become government or, would they cut foreign aid and cut supports for women and girls in Afghanistan. If there is even a spark of a chance that will happen, I want every single one of them to sit down and stop talking.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1863, 1867 to 1869, 1886, 1892, 1901, 1909, 1919, 1923, 1927, 1936 to 1938, 1865, 1870 to 1878, 1885, 1893 to 1895, 1902 to 1908, 1916 to 1918, 1921, 1926, 1934, 1939 and 1941.

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

We will now begin questions and comments with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for my NDP colleague. She spoke a bit during her remarks about the fact that the NDP is calling for, from what I understand, an immediate ceasefire in the context of Israel and Gaza. As far as I have seen, the NDP has not called for an immediate ceasefire in the context of the Ukraine war. I am trying to understand the consistency of the position of the New Democrats with respect to that. Why are they taking one position in one case and a different position in another case?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the Conservative Party does not understand the difference between Russia invading and occupying Ukraine and Palestine being occupied, I do not know what to say. I do not know how to help the member. He may need to do a bit more reading and research if he is going to be the critic for international development. That is an absurd question to ask.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member shared some of her personal stories on the issue, especially those from when she was a teacher.

I think a number of people would be offended by how this concurrence motion is being used as a tool to filibuster and prevent members from being able to speak to Bill C-56, which is all about affordability. When we take into consideration that the member made reference to international aid and how Conservatives intentionally and collectively voted against that money flowing, there seems to be a lot of irony there. Could she expand on that point?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, it is pretty baffling that Conservatives would have voted against international development and foreign affairs. They voted against the support for gender equity work that was being proposed. All of these things are a clear indication to me that this is simply an attempt to weaponize debate in the House. As a tool to do that, they are using the pain and suffering of women and girls in Afghanistan. It is absolutely appalling.

I hope anyone watching recognizes that this is not about helping people in Afghanistan, but about preventing the Government of Canada and Parliament from getting supports to Canadians. The reason for that is the Conservative Party is more interested in power than it is in getting supports for Canadians.

Today, the NDP got dental care for Canadians, and I am so utterly proud. The Conservatives cannot tell me one single thing that they have gotten for Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question is really about whether the member for Edmonton Strathcona is as perplexed as I am when the Conservatives today are saying that women and girls internationally are so important. I do not remember any initiatives from the Conservatives for their opposition days, when they could have made this a topic, in their demands for special debates or in the proposals they put before Parliament that would actually support women and girls internationally.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate that some things have been done. Under Stephen Harper, there was an initiative called the Muskoka initiative, which did have some good pieces to it, but it took out any support for reproductive health care anywhere else in the world. It happened at a time when that was also being done in the United States, so all of a sudden there was very little aid being given for women's reproductive health around the world.

I worked in Uganda at one point in a small village. The person I shared lodging with was a doctor who was working with women who had struggled with their pregnancies, were pregnant, were seeking reproductive health care or were seeking abortion. The fact that funding was cut meant tens of thousands of women around the world would have died. They would have died without that support.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the agenda today. The bill that was to be debated is one that all parties, or at least the Conservatives and the Liberals, already voted in favour of at second reading. It is also time allocated, so this concurrence debate is not slowing down the passage of that bill.

However, this concurrence debate does give members, including the member for Edmonton Strathcona, a chance to talk about the horrific circumstances of women and girls in Afghanistan and the government's lack of response, the government's failing of those women and girls in Afghanistan and the specifics of this report, which calls for the continued criminalization of the Taliban and non-recognition of it as a government. I wonder if she could spend some of the time left to talk about those failings of the government to protect women and girls in Afghanistan.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do believe I spoke quite extensively during my speech about how Bill C-41 has failed women and girls in Afghanistan. I also spoke about the low ODA, or official development assistance, and how that has failed.

One thing I would also bring up is that we debated this in June. This is an issue the Conservatives are simply bringing up because they want to distract from what the House had on its schedule and was going to be working on. They can put a million concurrence debates up before the House and, frankly, none of them will actually move forward the agenda Canadians have asked us to come here to do.

We did this debate. We have already talked about this. I am more than happy to talk about international development, and the member is right, this did give me an opportunity to talk about my very favourite subject of all, which is human rights in Canada and around the world, particularly the rights of women and girls.

If they really wanted to support women and girls in Afghanistan, around the world and in Canada, they would not have voted against those supports for women and girls. They would not have voted against supports for the gender equity work being done. They would not have voted against foreign affairs being cut. They would not have run in the 2019 election on the 25% cut to development.

They are not who they are trying to make themselves out to be today. It is very clear to me they want to be seen as something their voting record proves they are not.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was a little aghast at some of my colleague's comments, but she must realize we are actually in the opposition here. Our job is to oppose, and we did oppose many measures that were brought forward in the estimates. We went for a full night of voting against those because Canadians want the government to change. Canadians know the government has no concept of the affordability challenges they are facing, so I will defend us voting against all of those measures.

I will ask her, because she is not opposing the government at this point in any way whatsoever, how in the current debate she can support a government that opportunistically went into an election in 2021, at the very point when Afghanistan was falling. We could have saved so many of our people who helped us in Afghanistan, including women and girls who are no longer getting an education because of the government's actions. How does she continue that support?