SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 265 - Dec/11/23

Dec/11/23 4:00:56 p.m.
Watch

I find it fascinating, Madam Speaker. The member on this side of the House clearly outlined the government business that is allowed, the rules in this chamber and how he can present a concurrence motion, but the member continues to say that something else should be debated at this time. That is exactly—

54 words

Context: House Hansard - 265 - Dec/11/23

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Dec/11/23 5:15:22 p.m.
Watch

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.

153 words

Context: House Hansard - 265 - Dec/11/23

Ms. Heather McPherson

Dec/11/23 5:16:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41

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.

274 words

Context: House Hansard - 265 - Dec/11/23

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Dec/11/23 5:42:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on the question that I think perplexes many of us, which is this: Why, having debated this concurrence motion in June, do we have it back before the House again today? Does he know of any situation in Afghanistan that has changed significantly or of any reason we would be debating this for a second time when apparently everyone in the House agrees on this motion?

75 words