44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 11, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, those who hold monopolies or exclusive rights do not need to be good at what they do. They just have to be there. At the end of the day, they can charge whatever they want, with whatever conditions they want, to whoever they want. They do not have to sell to everyone if they do not want to.
The law will need to improve the efficiency of service providers, because they will not have the luxury of serving a passive and captive clientele.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:13:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Current Human Rights Situation in Iran”. It is in reference to an icon of the human rights movement in Iran, Ms. Nasrin Sotoudeh.
In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “The Rights and Freedoms of Women and Girls Globally, and in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to these reports.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:14:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I took the time to find the motion that we are debating today, because the Conservative Party seems to be a bit confused. The motion reads as follows:
In particular, the committee denounces the Taliban system of gender discrimination, systemic violence targeting minority communities...and other violations of fundamental human rights.
This motion clearly refers to human rights. However, last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the Conservative member for Peace River—Westlock made a video on Facebook Live in which he enthusiastically applauded and said that access to abortion in Canada was the greatest human rights tragedy of our time.
Despite all that, the first thing that the newly elected Leader of the Opposition did after his party's leadership race was to appoint the member for Peace River—Westlock as human rights critic. He also made that member the vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
How out of touch with Quebeckers and Canadians does the Leader of the Opposition have to be to appoint someone who applauds when access to abortion is reduced in another country?
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, maybe I got it wrong after all. Perhaps they did not get enough sleep, if they are raising points of order like that.
As I was saying, the story of Icarus is very interesting. He was so sure of himself that he thought he had come up with an excellent solution, but in the end, he found himself in trouble and landed on his head very quickly.
We saw this again in the 30-odd hours we spent voting. All I saw was a Liberal caucus that had not been united at all since the fall suddenly come together. I saw the ammunition given to the other parties in the House when I looked at exactly who was going to vote on which economic measures. It really reminds me of Icarus.
This brings me to the motion before us today, which also reminds me a little of Icarus. This motion gives me a chance to talk about human rights and what has been discussed in various committees, not only the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but also the committee that deals with international human rights, specifically, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Special Committee on Afghanistan. Human rights have been discussed extensively. That topic was the foundation of all the conversations we had in those committees.
I want to come back once again to one of the first decisions the Leader of the Opposition made when he was elected leader of the Conservative Party. The decision had to do with human rights. How did I come to that conclusion? It was easy. As vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, I saw the change in the Conservative membership of that committee following the election of the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton. Suddenly, I saw the member for Peace River—Westlock become vice-chair of the subcommittee. I looked into him because I like to be thorough in my work. I want to know my new committee colleagues. I did my research and I realized to my astonishment and disappointment, but mostly astonishment, that the member had made a live video just after getting off a plane, when he found out that the U.S. Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade, making access to abortion in the United States more difficult and, in some cases, a criminal offence. This is what I was asking my Liberal colleague about just now. The Conservative member applauded that ruling and said, in that same video, that access to abortion was the worst human rights tragedy in Canada.
Here I am, faced with a person who is entitled to his opinions, but I know full well that they are light years away from Quebec's values in terms of abortion access and rights. This member was appointed by the leader of the official opposition to sit on this committee. What is more, the leader made him what he calls his shadow minister, meaning the opposition's critic on the matter. That means that if the Conservative Party had come to power, this guy could probably and possibly have ended up either as minister for international aid and development or as parliamentary secretary. This is a guy who says that access to abortion is the worst human rights tragedy in Canada. That is important.
I want to come back to this motion telling us that we need to talk about human rights. Of course everyone agrees with that. I will read it:
That the committee report to the House that it firmly denounces the Taliban and rejects any recognition or legitimization of their control over Afghan territory.
No one is raising their hand to say they disagree. I will continue:
In particular, the committee denounces the Taliban system of gender discrimination...
Now maybe a Conservative MP will stand up and oppose the motion.
No? Good. I will continue:
...systemic violence targeting minority communities...
No one has anything to say about that either? All right then.
...reprisals against former members of the Afghan National Security and Defence Forces, Forces, attacks on freedom of the press, and other violations of fundamental human rights. The committee believes that the Taliban must remain a listed terrorist organization.
We are going to spend three hours debating this response and the tabling of the report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, even though everyone is in agreement.
I mentioned Icarus. Unfortunately, they are bringing about their own downfall. I have to talk about human rights in connection with a motion that everyone agrees on. I have no choice but to continue. This will take however long it takes, because that is how they want it. It was quite a job just to find out which committee report we were going to talk about today. As I said, there may be a minor breakdown in professionalism. That is so unlike them. I am not sure what is going on. Maybe they feel like they made a big mistake last week and that they keep making more. That is overconfidence. Overconfidence is always dangerous in life, whether at work or in sport. I have played team sports, and I can vouch for the fact that overconfidence is very dangerous. In the end, it can cost the team the game. However, I do not want to go overboard in giving advice. I will leave them to reflect on their own behaviour.
This report from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights does contain something worthwhile. It is important to note that this is a result of what happened on the Special Committee on Afghanistan. When the committee began its work, we quickly realized that Canadian humanitarian organizations were unable to do their work because they were violating Canada's Criminal Code. I asked a non-governmental organization, or NGO, about that for the first time on February 7, 2022. I was told that, because the Criminal Code prohibits the funding of terrorism, which is a good thing, Canadian NGOs were unable to send humanitarian aid, such as medication and food, to vulnerable populations. The Criminal Code made it difficult to send such aid.
We set about putting pressure on the Liberal government. On that point, I should mention that I had a lot of help from the opposition parties, the NDP and the Conservative Party, to put pressure on the government, which was far too slow to act. It eventually introduced Bill C-41, which we passed. This legislation is not perfect; in fact, it is quite imperfect. I found this out last week during a committee meeting, when I asked NGO representatives about it. They told us that it had improved things a little, but that it was far from perfect and that certain aspects of the bill still prevent them from being able to do their work normally.
We talked about this in early February 2022, and the government introduced the bill a year later, in the winter of 2023. It was still at committee in the spring. All that happened more than 18 months after the UN had taken action with resolution 2615, which called for countries to amend their criminal codes so they could send humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and to adapt their laws accordingly. That UN motion, as well as the motions we moved in the various committees regarding humanitarian aid and the fundamental rights of vulnerable populations, were effective.
As usual, the Liberal government is very slow to act and sometimes spends too long studying issues. Unfortunately, this is having a real impact on the ground. Some people suffered because Bill C‑41 was not in force. Children died of starvation because humanitarian aid could not be delivered. This was documented in articles in reputable newspapers all over the world. Some families had to sell some of their children because they could not afford to feed them all. They had to sell some of their children, even though Canada had a moral obligation towards these people because it participated in operations in Afghanistan and had direct ties with Afghan interpreters, members of the Afghan security forces, and politicians in Afghanistan, especially women politicians. Canada had created programs to help women successfully participate in politics in Afghanistan.
Canada ensured that women can get involved in democratic public discourse in Afghanistan. When Canada left, it left these women to fend for themselves. They had to face the Taliban. If there is one thing that upsets the Taliban, it is a woman who stands up and takes part in democratic debate in her own country.
I think the Taliban's biggest fear is to see a woman become empowered and participate in democratic debate in Afghanistan. To the Taliban, that is the devil incarnate.
Canada had a moral duty to these people and it did not live up to that duty. It arrived a year too late with an imperfect bill, which we supported because we believe that a step forward is always good for the people that will benefit. However, this is not right. Canada is neither an economic nor military power. Canada has a history of leadership in international human rights. That is coming from a Quebec sovereignist. I am thinking of Lester B. Pearson's peacekeepers. To be fair to my Conservative friends, I will also mention Brian Mulroney, who contributed to the fall of the apartheid regime.
These things happened. Let us also consider Jean Chrétien, who had a major impact on friendly countries in Africa. That is part of Canada's history. I imagine that these actions were largely driven by the values of Quebeckers, or I hope so. We have always been there. Humanitarianism started in Quebec, and Canada followed suit. So much the better if we can lead our Canadian friends in the right direction. We do it often. The child care system is just one example. I am not saying that Quebeckers are better than Canadians. No one is better or worse; we are simply different. That seems the best way to put it.
The only thing I held against my friend Jean Chrétien was the fact that he would say that Canada was “the bestest country in the world”. What country is second best, sixth best or eighth best? I do not know. I think there is no such thing as a best or worst people, a best or worst country. There are only different countries. Quebec is one of them and, one day, it will have everything it needs to become an independent nation. Perhaps I am getting off topic. Maybe it is because my Conservative friends added to the confusion today about the various motions we had to debate. I think it has affected me. I have to speak about a motion for 20 minutes when I only learned I had to talk about the motion two minutes before I took the floor.
Everyone agrees that we cannot let the Taliban continue to ensure that human rights are not upheld in Afghanistan. We cannot allow our humanitarian organizations, our NGOs, not to help them. That sums up what was said in the various committees, including the justice committee. Yes, we must keep the Taliban on the list of terrorist entities, and we must also allow our NGOs to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground there, because they know the ground, they have contacts and, above all, they have a big heart and want to help people. We can only applaud them for that. They need more support, and Canada should give them more. The government should give them more. They should not be overjoyed when access to abortion is restricted.
I will now be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.
1996 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:38:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
I think we both have an affinity for Greek mythology. I really enjoyed that part of his speech. We both also value the evolution of human rights domestically, in Quebec and in Canada, as well as the influence Canada has had around the world.
I would like to ask the following question. Although our Conservative colleagues say they support human rights, it seems to me that they would rather choose which rights to extend to women, and may not fully support allowing them certain rights. I would like my colleague to tell us a little more about that.
112 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 4:46:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his excellent speech on human rights, my colleague talked about a woman's right to make decisions about her body, to have an abortion if she so chooses.
As my colleague mentioned, among the Conservatives, there are some who applaud what happened in the United States and the fact that they took away women's rights. As we also know, when the subject of abortion has come up, we have seen Conservative committee chairs in tears, unable to chair their committee's work.
Conservatives are uncomfortable with that. They are standing up and raising points of order. They do not seem to have a position. They are not unanimous. There does not seem to be consensus on the issue of women's rights.
I would like my colleague to tell me whether, in his opinion, in Quebec and within the Bloc Québécois, there is a consensus on this issue.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 9:04:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, this member has been here a long time, and he should know and understand that the colleagues I have, my indigenous brothers and sisters and my relatives across northern Alberta are in a particular condition of poverty right now. That poverty has long been represented in the province, and people's needs have not been served by the ill wishes of corporations that continue to take our lands for granted and continue to pollute our waters.
As a matter of fact, we have seen some of the largest oil spills just recently. Chief Allan Adam has made those spills very clear. In Cold Lake, for example, we are seeing the seeping of their tailings pond there as well.
The issue that is most important and on the top of first nations' minds is this: When faced with these terrible circumstances related to our land, the members only speak about their own interests, their interests for their political, narrow power grab. When it comes to first nations, Métis and Inuit people in this country, we never hear about the constitutional rights that these people have.
Could the member verify that there are, in fact, treaty rights in Alberta, and those rights are directly impacted by the illegal sovereignty act?
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
