44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 11, 2023 11:00AM
- Dec/11/23 3:45:14 p.m.
- Watch
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.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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 3:50:54 p.m.
- Watch
We have a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:50:57 p.m.
- Watch
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—
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:51:11 p.m.
- Watch
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.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:51:33 p.m.
- Watch
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—
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:53:10 p.m.
- Watch
I have to interrupt the hon. member. I have a point of order from the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:53:17 p.m.
- Watch
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—
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:53:43 p.m.
- Watch
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.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:53:53 p.m.
- Watch
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—
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:55:45 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the hon. member to avoid such suggestions, because we do not want to assume reasons.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:55:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, you addressed my point very well.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:56:01 p.m.
- Watch
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—
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:56:30 p.m.
- Watch
We cannot reference the presence or absence of members in the House, and the parliamentary secretary knows that.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:56:40 p.m.
- Watch
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!
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:56:57 p.m.
- Watch
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.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:57:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the point is made.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:57:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify your point here. We are in a hybrid Parliament, so people are in this chamber regardless of whether they are here or voting virtually.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:57:37 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member definitely has a point. People can vote virtually or in person.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:57:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Who votes and who does not vote is a matter of Hansard. It is a matter of record. The hon. member did not mention certain members who were or were not here, but mentioning that half of a particular caucus was not there for a vote is a matter of Hansard, and I think that could be mentioned in debate.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
