SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

May/23/24 10:27:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state at the outset I will be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. To the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, how much is your gun grab going to cost Canadians?

50 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

The Speaker

May/23/24 10:39:48 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has five minutes.

11 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

May/23/24 10:45:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House, particularly at this time and with this august group, and indeed in the presence of wonderful colleagues across the way. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and I had the opportunity to speak on a panel yesterday. It was wonderful to see that he is continuing his ongoing masterclass in misinformation in the chamber. It is important for all of us as Canadians to reflect on the consequences when misinformation is spread, or perhaps when elected leaders choose to openly challenge the rights of others. I want to talk a little today about a woman's right to choose. I want to start by asking all of us whether or not we truly believe in freedom, the freedom of a woman to make decisions for what happens to her body. On this side of the House, we have been very clear that this is a priority for us. It has always been something that we will defend. That is why it is of grave concern to many of my constituents in Vancouver Granville to hear so many members opposite willing to really question or begin to put doubt into the minds of Canadians as to whether or not their party would indeed defend a woman's right to choose. In fact, we have heard members opposite making comments such as that women who have abortions end up needing redemption, needing forgiveness and needing God. One of the members opposite said this and said that she spoke for all MPs from the Conservative Party. That was a week ago, not 40, 50 or even 20 years ago. It was seven or eight days ago. If Canadians look at the chamber as the chamber that is supposed to uphold their freedoms, I do not understand how members opposite in the Conservative Party could truly be purveyors of freedom when all they want to do is take away the rights of women. We have seen Conservative governments across this country try to curtail the rights of 2SLGBTQI+ individuals because they do not believe they fit with their socially conservative way of living. That is also a concern for any of us that purport to care about freedom. If we in the chamber truly care about freedom, then every member of the House, including members opposite, would be actively supporting the rights of others, even those who may be different from them. That is why I think it is so important for us to continue the fight for freedom. However, our definition of freedom, on this side of the House, is not to obfuscate, misinform or mislead unintentionally, but really to do the things that would cause Canadians to feel as though their Parliament, their parliamentarians, have their back. Let us talk about ways in which members opposite have chosen not to have the back of Canadians, particularly when it comes to the question of freedom. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition openly cavorting with ideologically motivated violent extremists from Diagolon. We have seen him visit camps where people have made claims that Canada is broken or that the Prime Minister must be hanged. They have been actively engaging with white supremacists, brought them into this place and had meals with them. How is that freedom? Is that the type of freedom that Canadians want? I think it is not. I think Canadians would like to know that their parliamentarians, the leaders whom they elect, care deeply about protecting their rights. That is why it was so disturbing for me to hear the Leader of the Opposition talk so freely about using the notwithstanding clause, about how he would choose to override the rights of others under his laws, and about how he would decide what laws were constitutional. I have seen governments of all stripes, and I wonder what Canadians would ask. I wonder what Progressive Conservative prime ministers of the past would ask or would be thinking if they were to hear their once-grand party becoming the party of misinformation, the party of taking away the rights of others. It makes perfect sense. The Leader of the Opposition and many of his acolytes were trained under Stephen Harper, who sought to set up a snitch line. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition was a key player in that and defended it. They sought to take away the right to vote of women who wore the niqab. They sought to take away the right to vote of many Canadians. In fact, today, the Minister of Immigration had to make a decision to overturn many of the misguided policies of the members opposite in curtailing the rights of lost Canadians. When I talk about freedom, members opposite are only interested in taking away the freedoms of people they do not like and preserving their own freedoms, the freedom to run up large expense accounts on the public purse, to have expensive champagne on the public purse or to travel to conventions on the public purse, but not the freedom for a woman to choose what happens to her own body, for a young person questioning their sexuality to feel like they can be safe in their community or for all those women and others who have been marred by violence in the home to feel safe. They want to put guns back in the homes of Canadians and in the hands of Canadians who may not need guns. Why anybody in this country would need a semi-automatic weapon like an AR-15, I do not know, but that is what members opposite want to do. It is really important for us to spend a bit of time on this concept of freedom every single day and ask ourselves what kind of freedom we want for Canadians. Frankly, I would want freedom from the types of imposing views that the members opposite have on the rights of those who they may not consider the types of Canadians they want in this country. We have heard members opposite talk openly about taking away a woman's right to choose. We have seen them cavort with people who would like to take away the rights of people who look like me. We have seen them spend time with people who openly want to overthrow our democracy and undermine it at every turn, and they do it by spreading misinformation and hate and trying to sow discord among communities in this country. It is well past time that all members of this House take a position and say that it is no longer acceptable for us to say freedom for me, but not for thee. That is the position that the Conservative Party has chosen to take. I will end with the following thought. If we truly believe in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if we truly believe in our Constitution, if we truly believe in the notion of freedom for all Canadians, then are we not willing to stand up and say that these may not be rights that I need, but they are rights that others in this country might need? Is that not the type of country we want, where each and every one of us is prepared to stand up and defend the rights and freedoms of people we may consider different? On this side of the House, that is exactly what we seek to do. I am very fearful that members opposite will persist in trying to take away the rights of people who do not share their far-right, extremist views.

1277 words