Debates of Dec. 5th, 2024

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is exactly what the Standing Orders indicate, that members should not be using words that are disrespectful. Therefore, I will allow the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon to continue, and I hope members will respect the rules of the House so that we can function properly.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the meltdowns continue. It is now the third interruption of my speech, as I put to the members their uncomfortableness with how their leader is forcing them to continue to prop up the corrupt Liberal government and how afraid they are of the Conservative confidence motion with respect to the NDP leader's own words. I understand why they are so afraid. The Halifax International Longshoremen's Union said on Monday—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 13, talks about when members impute motives to other members in the House and personal attacks made when a member's motives are being maligned. The member needs to apologize and withdraw his comment as well.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not maligning anyone's intent. I am clearly stating what their intent is. There is no malice in that, so I do not see the relevance of the point of order.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not need male MPs in the House to tell me what my intentions are. In fact, we are not allowed to assume the intentions or motives of other members in the House. I would ask him—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The fact that members choose not to respect the rules of the House is very problematic. I would ask members to please be respectful to each other, think about the words they are going to use and rephrase them so they are more acceptable.

I believe that some of what is being said is debate. At this point, I am still looking into the matter that was brought forward. I will come back to hon. members in a few minutes.

In the meantime, the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon can continue his speech.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the NDP members are uncomfortable with my words, perhaps they will listen to the Halifax International Longshoremen's Association's words. It said, “On Monday the NDP has the opportunity to reinforce that they will not bring in back to work legislation by supporting their own leader's words.”

This is why we are having this debate trying to prevent the Conservatives' confidence motion. This is why NDP members continue to interrupt me. They are increasingly uncomfortable with the fact that they will have to vote on a confidence motion on their leader's words and how the Liberal government took away the rights of workers to strike. They are trying to avoid this by putting forward a procedural motion that normally is not brought on an opposition day.

The NDP has done this for the purpose of avoiding a confidence vote. As such, to prevent further meltdowns, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

When the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona rose on a point of order, the hon. member had already read his motion. I will put the motion forward and listen to the point of order after we deal with that motion. Both happened at the same time. The hon. member had already moved the motion, so I will go through with the motion and then come back to the point of order at the appropriate time.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #910

Committees of the House

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Resumption of Debate on the Motion for Concurrence

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona still have a point of order? I said I would come back to that.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was simply wanting to bring up the issue of relevance with the Conservative member's speech, but of course the Conservatives have now taken 45 minutes to do everything possible to stop talking about women's health issues.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has decided not to do that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising this morning in place of my extraordinary colleague, the member for Montarville. I would like to take a moment to recognize our fantastic critic for foreign affairs, who also serves as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I am speaking here today because my colleague was kind enough to share his speaking time with me, as well as invite me to ask witnesses questions at certain committee meetings when it was conducting the study that led to the report we are debating today. I want to thank him. It gave me a lot to think about.

Most of my speech today is based on the Bloc Québécois's supplementary opinion on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development's study on sexual and reproductive rights around the world.

This long-awaited study has highlighted the very important work that remains to be done if Canada is to move from words to deeds when it comes to its feminist foreign policy.

As the expression goes, it is important to walk the talk. While this long-awaited study was being conducted, there was a great deal of obstruction. My colleague from Montarville had told me about it, and when I took part in the meetings, I saw for myself that the Conservatives were filibustering.

That being said, I will begin by quoting what some of the witnesses said about the accountability of this government with respect to feminist policy. I will talk more specifically about certain parts of the world. Then, I would like to talk about secularism, which is a very important value in Quebec.

Firstly, it was surprising to hear from witnesses that almost 7 years after its announcement, Canada's feminist foreign policy is still not defined through a document that details principles, objectives and implementation guidelines. This may potentially explain why sharing results in this area seems difficult for Global Affairs Canada. So, on the one hand, we have GAC announcing during the study that “Canada is making significant progress in meeting its existing commitments”. On the other hand, we have the Auditor General's assertion that Canada's feminist international aid policy includes commitments describing how the funds are to be spent, “...but had no goals related to specific improvements in the circumstances of those who benefit from the funding”.

I actually had a conversation with my colleague from Terrebonne about this Auditor General report.

So there's a lot to think about when it comes to the development of international feminist policy by Global Affairs, from objectives to results, and how Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money is actually being used to advance women's rights and gender equality around the world.

Indeed, there was a lot to think about. Now I would like to get into a little more detail about specific problems in certain parts of the world, starting with Africa.

Secondly, Africa is an area where the issue of sexual rights is debated, as we heard from several witnesses who discussed cultural differences, and the need for Canada to work in this part of the world. One statistic sums up the problems associated with reproductive rights: sub-Saharan Africa accounted for some 70% of maternal deaths in 2020. Canada has a duty to support countries seeking to make progress in terms of abortion rights and access to quality health care — COVID-19 having imposed, in some countries, additional difficulties in accessing health care, particularly in terms of distance.

Keep in mind that these remarks were made in committee, particularly by Global Affairs Canada representatives, but the Auditor General also released a report on international assistance in support of gender equality. UNICEF representatives also testified in committee, and the Canadian Partnership for Women and Children's Health submitted a brief. We heard from a lot of witnesses, and all of them seemed to highlight the need to strive for greater accountability.

At a time when the government is developing an “African plan”, it is vital that international development, gender equality and access to healthcare services are key pillars of this strategy.

Also, while some committee members denounced, during committee meetings...certain laws in certain countries that run counter to people's fundamental rights with regard to their sexuality.... Ms. Théroux-Séguin of the Centre d'étude et de coopération internationale, in her testimony, expressed the hope that Canada could support legislative measures, and promote recommendations aimed at improving sexual and reproductive health. We therefore hope that the Canadian government, through a statement or in international forums, will take the lead in welcoming the development of projects that provide greater access to abortion and reproductive health services around the world. While interfering in the national policy processes of other countries is out of the question, Canada must nonetheless be vocal and offer assistance to countries that request it, to enable the development of essential reproductive health care services.

Thirdly, funding is a central issue, and several witnesses, including Oxfam-Québec, Oxfam-Canada and Action Canada, [all] raised concerns about the government's commitment to devote $700 million a year to support sexual and reproductive health and rights, with a particular focus on four neglected areas: family planning and contraception; safe and legal abortion services and post-abortion care; comprehensive sexuality education; and sexual and reproductive health and rights promotion activities.

I would also like to point out that some witnesses told us some rather disturbing things. In countries with tougher anti-abortion laws, there are not fewer abortions. Rather, there are fewer safe abortions, and therefore more deaths. Several witnesses pointed out that most maternal deaths are preventable. Here is another excerpt from the report:

According to the office of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights,

Women's sexual and reproductive health is related to multiple human rights, including the right to life, the right to be free from torture, the right to health, the right to privacy, the right to education, and the prohibition of discrimination. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) have both clearly indicated that women's right to health includes their sexual and reproductive health.

International political agreements reinforce this position.

In 1995, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action [which we talked about a lot] reinforced...and explicitly enshrined women's rights as human rights.

It is crazy that women's rights were not recognized as human rights until 1995. That was not that long ago. The report later mentions “the Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, which was launched in 2010”. Numerous international agreements have echoed that call for Canada to do more. Here is what the report says about the four neglected areas:

These four issues received $104 million of the total funding of $489 million for the same year.

If the committee's report correctly recommends the need for the government to meet its commitment to invest at least $700 million in women's sexual and reproductive health and rights globally by the end of fiscal 2023-2024, we ask that the government significantly increase its funding in the four neglected topics.

Members of the Global Cooperation Caucus are constantly reminded about them. These four neglected areas keep coming up. International co-operation organizations reach out to us about them, and representatives of all the parties hear the same thing. It really is important to keep in mind that we hear about this regularly.

Upholding the right to safe abortions, just like the prevention and treatment of HIV-AIDS and sexually transmitted infections, is an important medical and socio-economic issue. It is worrisome. We are also often reminded of that by the organizations working on the ground. Cases of HIV-AIDS are on the rise in certain places in Africa, and again, women are disproportionately affected. As I said, there are also sexually transmitted infections. To that category, we can add HPV, human papillomavirus, which can be avoided through vaccination. We were reminded of the World Health Organization's vaccination objectives, because it is a virus that can lead to cancer but that is preventable by vaccine. Canada is missing its target, however. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done on these issues.

This week, I attended a breakfast meeting where it was mentioned that cases of HIV-AIDS in indigenous communities are on the rise here in Canada. That is extremely concerning. Canada is actually falling behind compared to the other G7 countries. Canada is the only country where cases are on the rise, including because of this increase in indigenous communities.

“Fourthly, we heard the poignant testimony of Ukrainian MP Lesia Vasylenko, who spoke of the Russian army's use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.”

I had the opportunity to meet this MP for the first time in October 2022 at an Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly in Kigali, Rwanda. We had an opportunity to have a conversation.

It is very troubling to see this “barbarity without a name that must lead to the criminalization of the perpetrators”. That is the message that she wants to send to us. She was travelling around, and she also came here, to Parliament, to draw our attention to this issue. My colleague from Drummond also met with female Ukrainian MPs who told him about the horrors that are happening right now in that conflict zone.

This committee has already recommended to the government, in its report on the situation in Ukraine, that it “work with Ukraine and other international partners to prosecute those most responsible for Russia's crime of aggression against Ukraine by supporting the creation of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine or other similar mechanism”. In the quest for justice, sexual violence cannot be ignored when condemning Russia. And unfortunately, such situations are commonplace, since as the Canadian Partnership for Children's and Women's Health points out, “Women and girls continue to bear the brunt of the consequences of forced displacement, particularly in conflict zones where they face soaring levels of sexual violence”.

We therefore expect that in the next National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, the Government of Canada will increase its funding for programs enabling girls and women who are victims of sexual violence in conflict zones to obtain the justice they deserve.

The goal is to stop women and girls from being used as weapons of war in these conflict zones, which, as we see, are growing in number at the moment. Unfortunately, women are paying the price.

I would like to return to a question the Bloc Québécois has been raising all morning as part of this debate, namely the question of religion as it relates to sexual and reproductive rights. Witnesses came to testify in committee about religious opposition to the question of abortion out of principle and religious belief, which is harming women's health. It is not right for people to use religion in such a way that women have to pay for it with their lives or their health. I will go even further. One should not use religion to engage in hate speech. This is an opportunity to re-emphasize the importance of secularism.

I could talk about the situation of women in Iran, which relates to this issue of secularism. The Bloc Québécois was the first to move a motion following the death of Mahsa Amini, who was killed for wearing her veil improperly. It is absurd that today, in 2024, women are still dying for not wearing a piece of cloth properly. We will continue supporting Iranian women in their struggle for secularism. The same applies to Afghanistan. The Taliban regime is rolling back women's rights. In my Inter-Parliamentary Union meetings I have had exchanges with Afghani parliamentarians.

To get back to the October 2022 general assembly, I met with parliamentarians there, but only male parliamentarians. I was told that women had not won the right to leave the country. They had not managed to get the proper chaperone, which would have allowed them to attend this general assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to express themselves as female members of parliament. This issue is crucial, because the objective of this general assembly was to determine how to achieve a more representative, and hence democratic, kind of parliament. We need to hear these women's viewpoints. They are entitled to be present in the public sphere, which is not the case right now. They are being excluded, and the rights they had won in Afghanistan are being rolled back. This is extremely troubling.

I will take this opportunity to remind my fellow members of the importance of the Bloc Québécois bill aimed at repealing this religious exemption. Ottawa must take concrete action to counter hate speech, which has been rising especially since the start of the war in the Middle East. What we are seeing now, however, is that the Criminal Code still protects people who willingly foment hate when their words are uttered in good faith and based on a religious text in which they believe.

The elimination of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code, an exemption that also compromises the government's religious neutrality, is crucial to safety. Right here, right now, it is creating tension and conflict. It is for this reason that the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-367. It was to close this loophole in the Criminal Code that permits hate speech if it is ultimately motivated by religion. Unfortunately, the content of the bill apparently did not please the government, which we have a hard time understanding, considering it calls itself feminist. Separating church and state gives women power. That is really what we found out from the committee study. The witnesses who came to tell us that abortion is bad were hiding behind religious beliefs and motivations. I would like to remind my colleagues that women are still dying today in countries where they do not have access to safe abortions.

In conclusion, now more than ever, Canada needs to update its feminist foreign policy and respond to the Auditor General's questions and concerns. COVID-19 and the growing number of conflicts and natural disasters caused by climate change are all factors that are changing the world order and current priorities. As a G7 nation, Canada must step up and start walking the talk. It is our duty to help women and girls in all these places around the world where they are being subjected to heinous sexual acts and losing their rights. We have to do our part. That is what the world is asking us to do.

The major international co-operation organizations are reminding us of our obligations as a G7 nation. There are female parliamentarians on the ground who are worried. Just a few days ago, female MPs from Ukraine came to tell us about advancements that have been made possible thanks to technology, but also to share their concerns. They need our help to continue participating in the democratic life of their country. The same is true for all women in situations of conflict or war. They need help to regain their rights as women, to have access to safe sexual and reproductive health care and to play their role in society to the fullest. We should not leave them stuck in this situation where the only thing that is happening is an erosion of their rights. On that note, I urge everyone to take action, and I am ready to take questions from my colleagues.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave a very good speech on this topic. She mentioned what Canada is doing and that we should try to do more around the world.

Has she got any ideas on how Canada should be helping other countries in the world catch up to where we are, when it comes to abortion and women's rights?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in my speech, it is important to be able to know where the money is going and how it is actually helping women on the ground. Answers are needed to the questions raised by the Auditor General, who is calling on the government to be more accountable when it comes to feminist policy.

I would like to add something that I forgot to mention in my speech. According to co-operation organizations, it would be important to collaborate with local organizations to help empower local groups. It is these local organizations that are asking us to do so. I think that is something else we need to consider. We must also ensure that the money is spent and that cuts are not made to international co-operation budgets. The local organizations are worried about cuts, too. The Canadian government must pull its own weight. To that end, it must not divest from international co-operation, but maintain its commitment levels by spending the necessary money to rectify the situation.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a woman's right to choose, which is a fundamental right.

However, the Bloc and the Conservatives just voted to try to kill this debate. They could have chosen to adjourn debate, so we could return to this and vote on it later. Instead, they chose a motion that would kill the debate altogether.

In the current Parliament, we have had a motion like this come up in the House 36 times, and every single time, the Bloc has voted against that motion, against killing debate. I thought the Bloc did this on principle. However, the one time the Bloc votes to kill debate is when it is on a woman's right to choose. Why is that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc is well known for its pro-choice positions and support of feminist policies. We have done our committee work on this report. I have said it and I will say it again. Thanks to my colleague from Montarville, we have done our job. Our positions are known.

What is happening now involves a procedural matter. This is not the first time I mention this, and we are also seeing this in committee. People are trying to play politics with women's issues, and I find that deplorable. I saw this as recently as last summer at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. What happened is no trifling matter. The Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats brought victims to tears in their attempt to politicize this issue. It was absolutely horrible. The media decried the situation. I let victims recount their experiences with domestic violence, their right to be women and to be free of this violence. Unfortunately, instead of asking these women questions and doing their job, all three parties got bogged down on a procedural question to determine who defends women's rights more. While they hurled accusations back and forth, the victims rose to tell us we should be ashamed as members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I sense the exact same climate this morning in the House. Attempts are being made to politicize this issue. The Bloc's pro-choice positions on women's rights issues are known, but this should not be used for procedural wrangling. Above all, the issue should not be politicized, and yet that is what I sense is happening now in the House. I also feel it in committee, where we were known for our lack of partisanship and our ability to follow procedures. This is so unfortunate.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Shefford on another brilliant speech.

I cannot help but be extremely surprised and disappointed by the question asked by my colleague from Victoria, who appears to be questioning the importance the Bloc Québécois places on this inalienable right, in our view, to access to health care and to full autonomy in making decisions about one's own body. I find it almost disgusting, especially since the New Democrats themselves sabotaged House procedures regarding opposition day.

I especially want to talk about the secularism issue my colleague from Shefford addressed in her speech. I am extremely concerned by the House's rejection yesterday of the motion I tried to introduce to recognize the importance of repealing the religious exemption in the Criminal Code that allows people, on the pretext of religious conviction, to engage in violent speech, calls to death and calls for the annihilation of entire peoples.

I also see a rise in masculinism, a rise in right-wing populism and a trend to return to so-called traditional values, values that disrupt the principle of absolute equality between men and women. This worries me tremendously, and I think it also represents a step backward in terms of women's rights.

I would like my colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, to share with us the concerns of women in general with regard to the potential erosion of their rights and gains, acquired after decades of struggle by the feminist movement in Quebec and Canada.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot get over all the studies we have to do in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, studies that remind us that there are real risks of losing ground. In fact, it is already happening. Masculinism is clawing back the rights women acquired thanks to those feminists who paved the way for today's women through decades of struggle. Now we see that, because of misogyny and the rise of masculinism online, women's rights are being eroded. At committee, many witnesses have come to tell us how important it is to control what can be said online and how far hate speech like this can go. This is not just a religious issue. It is an issue of hate speech undermining women's rights.

It is ridiculous, because it was uncomfortable for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to realize that, in the end, the only witnesses who spoke against abortion were doing so based on religious principles, with no science to back their remarks. In fact, it has been scientifically proven that, when laws are enacted to limit abortion solely on the basis of religious principle, women end up dying. There are not fewer abortions, just more unsafe ones.