Debates of Dec. 11th, 2023

Justice and Human Rights

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, we asked a question about Conservative policy on military, and they start calling us “ignorant”. That is unparliamentary.

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

It is unparliamentary and the hon. member should know better.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, if you judge it unparliamentary, I will withdraw it out of deference to your office.

The member knows the following facts. He knows the Conservatives support Operation Unifier. He knows that we started Operation Unifier, actually. He also understands that when we have budget and confidence motions, members are not just voting on the particular item on the table; they are voting regarding whether or not they have confidence in the government. Conservatives do not have confidence in the current government, which is why, when given the chance, we voted non-confidence in the government at every single occasion. Does that mean that we oppose every single spending item? Clearly it does not. That is obviously absurd. We voted non-confidence in the government every chance we got.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising this very important debate, considering the travesty that is going on in Afghanistan, in particular against women and girls. Reports are coming out, as recently as today, talking about the 1.7 million foreigners in Pakistan they are looking to push back to where they came from. This in particular has a huge impact on women and girls who are from Afghanistan, including those who were the breadwinners in their families, such as widows who lost their husbands during the conflict and who worked when they were allowed to work during the west's intervention. Now, to quote their words, they are saying, “We will be eliminated if we return to Afghanistan.”

What can the member add about the importance of the west's continued participation in standing up against these autocratic regimes around the world? At the same time, can he address the fatigue he talked about and how it requires that long-term sort of thinking in order for us to continue to support those who need our support around the globe?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his service in Afghanistan and to our country.

It has been inspiring to me to see the deep bonds that were established between Canadian Forces members who served and the Afghan people, and to see the incredible lengths that people who served in Afghanistan have gone, since the pullout in 2021, to assist and support the Afghan people. That goes for not only this member and other members of the House, but also many veterans and members of our military, who are not in elected office but who are nonetheless doing everything they can to raise money and take other actions. I want to salute the service of our veterans and their work supporting the Afghan people. They understand. They have made these sacrifices.

To the member's question about fatigue, those who fought and served understand the immense sacrifice. They have made far more sacrifices than any of us who did not serve in that way have made. They understand the importance of us continuing to stand with the Afghan people.

This is why I talked about the proposals in my speech of refusing to legitimize or tolerate the Taliban and continuing to apply maximum pressure while engaging with and supporting opposition groups. Different opposition groups are organizing and coming together in various ways to oppose the Taliban. We should be opposing the Taliban while actively engaging and supporting the opposition, recognizing that the fight is not over, that it is the birthright of the Afghan people to have freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and that we must be with them until the job is finished.

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

Madam Speaker, as many would know, very few if any members have brought forward concurrence reports as the member opposite has. That, as the member knows, prevents debate on government legislation. Today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-56, and the member has chosen to bring forward another concurrence report.

Does the member not recognize or have any sort of desire to see government legislation? Why does he consistently want to bring forward concurrence reports to try to frustrate the legislative process here in Ottawa?

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

Madam Speaker, the House of Commons standing orders provide various opportunities for the government to put forward its legislative agenda, and they also provide various opportunities for opposition members to put forward ideas for debate that are priorities for them and their constituents.

The way the schedule works on Mondays is that we have an hour for Private Members' Business, the government has available two hours for Government Orders and then we have Routine Proceedings, which is a time when members can move motions and table petitions. I could go through all the mechanics of that, but the hon. member knows them well. He knows that concurrence motions and debates are part of the process.

Fundamentally, this is an extremely important issue. There are Afghan Canadians and people of goodwill around the world who I know are watching this debate and are interested in the outcome of this debate, because they are concerned with the cause of freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Afghanistan. This is not about raising that issue only but about raising the broader issues of this new cold war we are in and the lessons we can learn from what happened in Afghanistan for other situations.

I think this is an extremely important issue to be raised in the House of Commons. It is the right place to debate it. It is the right time to debate it. I certainly will make no apologies for putting that idea forward at this time.

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

Before we resume debate, I wish to clarify for the House that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has moved concurrence in the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, not the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which is on a very similar topic. The Chair misspoke earlier in putting the motion to the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the most appropriate place to start off is the line of questioning that I just asked the member opposite. Prior to question period getting under way, we were having a healthy discussion at the third reading stage of Bill C-56. I know I was not the only one prepared to come to the House to debate Bill C-56.

What I would like to talk about for the next number of minutes is the purpose of moving concurrence reports such as this particular report. It is not necessarily to have the focus of the House of the Commons on debating the issue the member has attempted to bring forward. As we saw in a number of questions, issues aside from Afghanistan were raised. Rather, it is about a rationale and reasoning that I believe, as many others believe, we see from this particular member: He stands in his place time and time again in order to prevent debates of the government agenda. One only needs to look at the timing of when the member brings forward concurrence debates. They are all on the government's legislative dates when we are going to be debating substantive legislation.

This morning, as members would know, we brought forward Bill C-56. Prior to question period getting under way, I was the one speaking to it. Bill C-56 is very important to Canadians in a very real and tangible way. It is about an issue that Canadians are very much concerned about from coast to coast to coast. To amplify that, all one needs to do is take a look at the last remarks, because as we were getting to question period, I had to stop speaking on the legislation because we were entering into members' statements, followed then by question period.

It is interesting that a big focus of question period was in fact the issues I was talking about in the lead-up to members' statements. Also, if we go through members' statements, we will find that these were the issues being amplified. Members of the House, outside of the Conservative caucus, came to the House believing that we would be debating Bill C-56. That is not to say that what is happening in Afghanistan today and what has taken place since 2001 are not important issues. We recognize many of the horrors that have taken place in Afghanistan. We understand the important role that Canada has to play in it.

However, we also need to recognize at this point in time the types of tactics and efforts from the official opposition, the Conservative Party, a minority inside this chamber, today to prevent debates and legislation from passing. A very good example of this is in a question raised by the New Democrats. We talk about Canada and its role in Afghanistan, and the member talked about the alliance that seems to be out there, indirectly referring to Russia, Afghanistan and like-minded countries. Then he posed a question about the Conservative Party with respect to Ukraine. I think it was a legitimate question to be asking the Conservative Party. Again, we saw the tactics it used last Thursday and Friday. The response was laughable. The question was why the Conservative Party not once, not twice, but I believe three times in total voted specifically to deny Ukraine funds. One of those funds was with respect to the—

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

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

Madam Speaker, we are well into the speech and have not heard anything about the report. We have heard about procedure and about some matters that are entirely unrelated. He is talking about a question that has nothing to do with this report—

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

The member has mentioned Afghanistan and the service. The hon. member still has 15 minutes to get to the heart of the report. The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge knows that we have a certain tolerance for when members get to the point of a report.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the point I was getting to is that Operation Unifier is a military operation, and the member who introduced the motion talked about the Canadian Forces and the role we played in it. Another member tries to imply that it is not relevant, and he needs to give his head a shake. At the end of the day, it is absolutely relevant to be talking about Operation Unifier, a project that is taking place in Ukraine, and the Conservatives' behaviour, which is not consistent with the motion they are moving today.

On one occasion, the Conservatives voted directly on that. On two other occasions, they voted against Ukraine. When the member was asked about it, what was his answer? Well, it was a confidence issue. We went line by line on expenditures, and the Conservative Party had a choice. They did not have to vote specifically against something they believe in. To try to give the impression that it is a confidence vote is absolutely bogus.

The bottom line—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member. I have a point of order from the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I realize that I have not been here that long, but as it would certainly appear the member has been here much longer than I have, he would well know that every vote against the budget item from the opposition, which it is appropriately meant to do, would be a confidence vote against the government for the reckless fiscal attitude it has concerning—

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

I do understand the point the hon. member is trying to make, and I am sure the parliamentary secretary knows full well that all budget votes are confidence votes. It is on the record now.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that there is a lot of regret on the other side over the types of things they voted against. They can still have all the confidence votes they want, but at the end of the day, the Conservatives have shown very clearly that they do not support Ukraine in a fashion they like to believe they do.

This is consistent with the style and pattern we have witnessed from the Conservative Party over the last six months and more, where members opposite try to give a false impression and say they had no choice and had to vote against Ukraine on all three occasions, which is just not true. They could have still vote with a lack of confidence on a wide variety of budgetary motions. They did not have to vote against those budget requests.

Operation Unifier, as an example, is very relevant to what we are talking about today, because we are talking about the ways that we conduct our international affairs, whether it is diplomacy or with our Canadian Forces. As we went through the budget, line by line as someone has pointed out, the Conservatives had a choice and they chose to vote on the side of Russia. That is in essence what they did—

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

I would remind the hon. member to avoid such suggestions, because we do not want to assume reasons.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, you addressed my point very well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is no turning back.

When we look at the different lines that were actually voted on, for the time the members were there to actually vote. I want to make sure I am parliamentary on this; at times, the Conservative Party showed up at 50%. It got down to about 49% or something of that nature for voting—

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

We cannot reference the presence or absence of members in the House, and the parliamentary secretary knows that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is true.

Suffice it to say that, when it started to get a little late, some members felt it was more important to have some sleep than to actually participate in a vote. I am not saying—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

This implies they were absent from the chamber. We cannot project indirectly what we cannot do directly. I ask the hon. member to try not to incite disruption.