44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 11, 2023 11:00AM
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—
574 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:58:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to the last point of order, the member is right in the sense that if we are in hybrid, it means that members can either be inside the chamber or they can be on screen. However, after midnight, maybe Conservatives were in bed. I would suggest that, at the end of the day, let us push that to the side and talk in terms of why we are debating this particular motion today.
The Conservative Party would like to give the impression—
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:00:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member across the way has not been listening very carefully at all. I have made reference, right from the very beginning, in regard to the report.
I have both motions, the motion that ultimately went to the wrong committee, in terms of the concurrence report, and the one that we are actually supposed to be debating. It is not that difficult. It is about Afghanistan and the Taliban. When we talk about Afghanistan and the Taliban—
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:08:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, now they are all applauding. They like this. Now I am really relevant to them. All one has to do is say “axe the tax”, and they think one is relevant.
This is the problem that I started to get into prior to question period. Then they were all jumping up like beans, and I was not able to conclude those remarks.
Let us talk about this resolution, and I will suggest that there is a common theme. It is much like when the leader of the Conservative Party made it very clear, coast to coast to coast, that the Conservative Party was going to do what it could on one issue, which is the price on pollution. This is because Conservatives really do not believe in climate change.
At the end of the day, what is happening is that the MAGA right, the Donald Trump far right in the States, is creeping its way into Canada and coming through the leader of the Conservative Party's office. This is why we are debating the motion. Part of this is their thinking that it does not necessarily have to be true; they just say what they think will look good on a bumper sticker. What has happened—
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:11:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there was a lot in that rambling bit of incoherent, non-relevant debate. It was not relevant to the motion and the report. There are some things that bear correction.
I wonder if the member can verify and confirm that he is aware that the bill we are not debating is time allocated and that this debate on concurrence is not slowing down or interfering with the government's agenda. Is he aware that the motion we are debating was on notice, so anybody who was coming prepared to speak today may have been aware that this motion could be moved, as it was on notice, and that it is up to members to move concurrence motions during Routine Proceedings?
That is the only time in the rubric where such a motion can be moved if members, such as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, would wish to debate that particular motion.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:40:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here debating an important motion about human rights in Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover. A couple of members have said we should not be debating this. We do not need to be debating this for the full three hours. Those members have proceeded to give lengthy speeches on the subject. Of course, those members know the process is if they think it should maybe collapse on an item, then the most effective way they bring about that result is by not speaking to it. I am referring in particular to my friend across the way from Winnipeg North.
My friend from the Bloc, of course, found ways of connecting all kinds of other issues into the discussion, as sometimes happens in this place, but I do want to ask him a question about Afghanistan. I would like to hear his views on what we in Canada can do to concretely promote democratic development in Afghanistan. I think some people look at the situation and they feel a certain kind of fatalism. I believe there are still things we can do and we need to do to stand with the people of Afghanistan, that we cannot give up on the cause of freedom and democracy.
What does he think that Canada can concretely do to support the people of Afghanistan in their desire to realize democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law?
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 5:45:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I asked myself the same question as my NDP colleague. Why are we debating this motion today? Why not sooner? There seems to be unanimous consent, but I will not repeat the same questions.
I have some concerns because when we talk about the Taliban, we know that it is already a listed terrorist organization. There is a great deal of distrust—in Quebec in any case, and I am sure it is the same across Canada—for this organization or this group of people who do not show much interest in human rights, especially when we talk about women's rights. This concerns us a lot. We saw here in Parliament that there have already been numerous debates over the years on the right to abortion. No one wants to reopen that debate, but there are times when some of our colleagues suggest that it could be up for debate in the future. That concerns us.
I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that the situation in Canada, with this type of debate on upholding human rights, on a woman's right to an abortion and women's presence in society, could lead to extreme positions that, while not as serious as what we see in Afghanistan, could be similar to the types of speeches we might see there.
What are his thoughts on this?
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
