SoVote

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

Dec/11/23 5:01:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to be fair, I really should be more clear. It is only some members of the Conservative Party who have been very clear that they are not supportive.

30 words

Supportive

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/11/23 5:01:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. It is uncommon that I have to raise a point of order on one of my own colleagues, but on the issue in which she said that Conservatives were against women, it was the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan who brought a legislator from Uganda who called for the death penalty for LGBTQ people, so I do not think it is just women who— An hon. member: Oh, oh!

82 words

Lgbtq
Women

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/11/23 5:02:02 p.m.
Watch

We are not going to start debate. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is out of order. I am going to ask the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay to withdraw his comment. Please, we do not want to generate more acrimony.

46 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/11/23 5:02:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a fact, but I will withdraw it.

11 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/11/23 5:02:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member repeatedly spreads falsehoods on this issue. I spoke up and corrected him the last time the member spread this nonsense. It is complete nonsense. The committee in question invited an opposition member, with whom I disagree on many issues, as it happens, who very clearly said, in the context of the committee, that she did not agree with anything the member is saying. This is completely false—

80 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/11/23 5:02:56 p.m.
Watch

That is debate, and it is totally outside the question of the speech that the hon. member made. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona did clarify what she meant. We are not going to touch other subjects. All of the other subjects that were raised are out of order. The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge is rising on a point of order.

63 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Dec/11/23 5:03:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe I heard you instruct the member for Timmins—James Bay to withdraw his comment. Did he? He has withdrawn it.

25 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Dec/11/23 5:03:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41

Madam Speaker, frankly, I was on the foreign affairs committee when that witness came, so I can be very clear on that, certainly. I want to talk about international humanitarian law. We were talking about the fact that international humanitarian law means that Bill C-41 was bad legislation that was unnecessary. Sometimes we forget in this place how important it is that Canada apply international law equally around the world. It is really important because it is our reputation at stake. It is what gives us the moral ability to talk to other countries and demand better of them. Right now, we are not applying international humanitarian law or international law equally. I will give a perfect example. Right now, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois Party and, of course, the NDP are very supportive of Ukraine. I am delighted that Canada is playing such a key role in ensuring that humanitarian law is protected in that circumstance. We are using the tools that we have through the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice to ensure that Russia, which is an occupying force, is held responsible for the crimes it commits. One of the interesting things about the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice is that they are unbiased and look at crimes committed by both sides. That is really key. They are entities that are able to use non-violent ways of resolving conflicts, and that is an important thing that we have, as a globe. However, the International Criminal Court wants, and has asked the International Court of Justice, to undertake an investigation of the crimes that are currently happening and that have happened in Israel and Palestine, and Canada is playing a spoiler in that situation. From my perspective, there is not a soul in this place who is not absolutely horrified and appalled by what Hamas did on October 7. It is a terrorist group, full stop, and the hostages it has must be released immediately, but the Government of Israel is a government, and it and Netanyahu need to be held to a different standard than a terrorist organization is. What we need to make sure we see is that the people committing crimes, on either side of the conflict, are held responsible for those crimes. What we need more than anything, which I think no one here is going to be surprised to hear me say, is a ceasefire so the 18,000 people who have already died, the majority of them women, children and babies, are not asked to pay the price for the terrorist organization that is Hamas. When Canada applies international law standards differently, and when it looks different in Ukraine than it does in Palestine, what do members think the rest of the world sees? What do they think the world sees from Canada, and how do members think we will respond? When we pick and choose human rights, pick and choose when to apply international humanitarian law and change the channel when it is inconvenient for us, that is not the Canada we need to be. Canada needs to be so much better than that. I look at the situation we have seen in Yemen. I know it started under Stephen Harper, but, frankly, it has been eight years, which we have heard time and time again, and the Liberals have not fixed it. Why are we still sending arms to a country that is using them on civilians? Last week at the foreign affairs committee, I asked whether we even know whether any Canadian arms are being used in Gaza, and we do not know. We have to do better. Canada has to do better. We have to have higher standards. We have to get back to that place where we punch above our weight. We are the country that is standing up for democracy and for international law. We stand up for human rights regardless of where one is, what colour one is and what religion one practices. These are the values that Canadians expect from their government and their parliamentarians, so we need to do more. We need to do so much more for Afghanistan, but this charade the Conservatives have brought forward is a distraction. They are trying to change the channel. I want every one of the Conservatives over there to look in the mirror and ask themselves, if they ever become government or, would they cut foreign aid and cut supports for women and girls in Afghanistan. If there is even a spark of a chance that will happen, I want every single one of them to sit down and stop talking.

790 words

Hon. Gary Anandasangaree

Dec/11/23 5:09:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1863, 1867 to 1869, 1886, 1892, 1901, 1909, 1919, 1923, 1927, 1936 to 1938, 1865, 1870 to 1878, 1885, 1893 to 1895, 1902 to 1908, 1916 to 1918, 1921, 1926, 1934, 1939 and 1941.

51 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/11/23 5:10:31 p.m.
Watch

We will now begin questions and comments with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

17 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Dec/11/23 5:10:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for my NDP colleague. She spoke a bit during her remarks about the fact that the NDP is calling for, from what I understand, an immediate ceasefire in the context of Israel and Gaza. As far as I have seen, the NDP has not called for an immediate ceasefire in the context of the Ukraine war. I am trying to understand the consistency of the position of the New Democrats with respect to that. Why are they taking one position in one case and a different position in another case?

97 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Dec/11/23 5:11:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the Conservative Party does not understand the difference between Russia invading and occupying Ukraine and Palestine being occupied, I do not know what to say. I do not know how to help the member. He may need to do a bit more reading and research if he is going to be the critic for international development. That is an absurd question to ask.

66 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/11/23 5:11:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member shared some of her personal stories on the issue, especially those from when she was a teacher. I think a number of people would be offended by how this concurrence motion is being used as a tool to filibuster and prevent members from being able to speak to Bill C-56, which is all about affordability. When we take into consideration that the member made reference to international aid and how Conservatives intentionally and collectively voted against that money flowing, there seems to be a lot of irony there. Could she expand on that point?

102 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Dec/11/23 5:12:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, it is pretty baffling that Conservatives would have voted against international development and foreign affairs. They voted against the support for gender equity work that was being proposed. All of these things are a clear indication to me that this is simply an attempt to weaponize debate in the House. As a tool to do that, they are using the pain and suffering of women and girls in Afghanistan. It is absolutely appalling. I hope anyone watching recognizes that this is not about helping people in Afghanistan, but about preventing the Government of Canada and Parliament from getting supports to Canadians. The reason for that is the Conservative Party is more interested in power than it is in getting supports for Canadians. Today, the NDP got dental care for Canadians, and I am so utterly proud. The Conservatives cannot tell me one single thing that they have gotten for Canadians.

153 words

Afghanistan

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

Dec/11/23 5:13:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question is really about whether the member for Edmonton Strathcona is as perplexed as I am when the Conservatives today are saying that women and girls internationally are so important. I do not remember any initiatives from the Conservatives for their opposition days, when they could have made this a topic, in their demands for special debates or in the proposals they put before Parliament that would actually support women and girls internationally.

76 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Dec/11/23 5:14:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate that some things have been done. Under Stephen Harper, there was an initiative called the Muskoka initiative, which did have some good pieces to it, but it took out any support for reproductive health care anywhere else in the world. It happened at a time when that was also being done in the United States, so all of a sudden there was very little aid being given for women's reproductive health around the world. I worked in Uganda at one point in a small village. The person I shared lodging with was a doctor who was working with women who had struggled with their pregnancies, were pregnant, were seeking reproductive health care or were seeking abortion. The fact that funding was cut meant tens of thousands of women around the world would have died. They would have died without that support.

147 words

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

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

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Dec/11/23 5:18:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was a little aghast at some of my colleague's comments, but she must realize we are actually in the opposition here. Our job is to oppose, and we did oppose many measures that were brought forward in the estimates. We went for a full night of voting against those because Canadians want the government to change. Canadians know the government has no concept of the affordability challenges they are facing, so I will defend us voting against all of those measures. I will ask her, because she is not opposing the government at this point in any way whatsoever, how in the current debate she can support a government that opportunistically went into an election in 2021, at the very point when Afghanistan was falling. We could have saved so many of our people who helped us in Afghanistan, including women and girls who are no longer getting an education because of the government's actions. How does she continue that support?

166 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Dec/11/23 5:19:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, frankly, when I speak to my constituents, what they really want me to do is work with other parties to get supports for them, to do the work together to get things done. They do not actually want to see us fighting with each other in the House of Commons. They want to see us making sure things happen, such as dental care. “Dental care” is all I need to say about that. There is one other thing I will say. The member asks how I can support the Liberals. I am very upset with many of the things the Liberals do, and the only thing I will say to the member is that I can only imagine it would be worse by multitudes if the Conservatives were to win the next election.

137 words