44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 7, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/7/22 1:13:13 p.m.
- Watch
I have to allow for more questions. I would also remind the member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to members.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague seems concerned about the issue of housing, which I appreciate. I find his interventions on the matter quite thoughtful.
However, he says that the government has to do more than just throw money at the problem. One of the problems with the federal government program right now is that a lot of money is being sent to private developers to build housing that costs $2,200 in Montreal. People in desperate need of housing cannot afford it. At some point, the government is going to need to invest in building housing that people can afford.
What does my colleague think?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is a common misconception that government builds homes. Government does not build homes. People build homes.
When I have talked to developers in our region, and I have spent a lot of time on housing, being a hotelier myself and building units, the best programs we could do as a government are zero percent interest loans. They would enable developers to look at solutions so that they can build, making sure they do not lose $1 million when they are building a unit, while hopefully allowing them to build more units that they can then offer for lower rents.
Rentals are what we need. We talk about 1.8 million homes. We talk about people finding themselves at our shelters. They need transitional housing. It is rentals.
The other big thing that we have learned about hotels is that if we have more rentals in Canada, if a landlord is stuck with an empty unit and there are four more empty units, they lower the price point for the unit in order to rent it. We just need more of them. Let us help developers build more rental units.
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, the population of Nunavut is about 40,000 people. This bill, if passed, would help more than two million people. That is more than triple the number of people who live in Nunavut.
Why is the member against targeted measures that would help all these millions of people in Canada?
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are not.
Yesterday the Conservative government voted for tax decreases targeted at our most vulnerable. When we look at how we could help Canadians, we have looked at targeted measures. We just cannot do all of them.
I know the member for Nunavut spoke yesterday about the increasing costs of food, and I believe it is the highest in the region in Nunavut. We need to look at that cost. Looking at the broadest population, how do we help get food to Nunavut and help those populations? I think that is the bigger necessity. I would focus more on that.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I must be a bit naive and believe in unicorns and fairies. When I first got into politics, I thought that, as an elected member of an opposition party, I would be able to stand up in committee and in the House to propose solutions, to work with other parliamentarians and with the government. I thought we would work together to come up with bright ideas to help people. I thought that, at the end of the day, all the bills would be so great that everyone would want to vote for us all at once. I imagined that people would be impressed by how well we work together and how extraordinary this legislature and this Parliament are. I really thought that.
Oh, how naive I was when I first got into politics three years ago. I thought those things would happen. That is what I expected. I believed in democracy, in collaboration. I am talking about this because the speech I am about to give, I also gave three years ago, two years ago, a year ago, and again three months ago. I keep rising in this place to talk about housing. We have proposed solutions. I have talked about how pressing the needs are, how glaring they are. I have said that what the government is doing makes no sense, that it is simply not building enough units for people who really need them. I have given this speech many, many times already, and here I am forced to give it again today. The housing crisis is a major crisis.
At this time, there are three major crises in Canada. First, there is the language crisis. We have seen the Statistics Canada figures. The French language is declining everywhere in Quebec and across the country.
Second, there is the climate crisis, which we talk about all the time. The government continues to invest in projects that make no sense, such as Bay du Nord, which will produce one billion barrels of oil over 30 years and is a disastrous project. Even the UN Secretary-General has said that it is criminal to continue extracting oil. This is not just a Greenpeace or Équiterre supporter saying it, it is the Secretary-General of the United Nations. That surely means something. This man speaks to governments and leaders throughout the globe and asks them to make rational decisions that are in everyone's interest. Sadly, no, the government continues to invest in oil. Today, we learned that the bill for Trans Mountain is $17 billion. That is outrageous. There are high-tech companies in my riding that are developing batteries. In Quebec, people want to build electric vehicles, and electric buses are already being manufactured. This is the energy of the future. It represents the well-paying jobs of the future. We are working for our children. However, we are not moving forward. As much as we keeping talking about it, nothing is happening. The spirit of collaboration that I naively hoped would emerge from our debates is just not there.
Third, there is the housing crisis. I am not sure how else to say it. Maybe I should mime it or sing about it. According to Scotia Bank, we need 3.5 million housing units.
I attended a conference organized by the young mayor of Longueuil and the young mayor of Laval. By the way, this is interesting: In the last municipal election in Quebec a year ago, we saw young mayors emerge who have their heart in the right place and who want to present real solutions with a view to serving the people, from dealing with the climate crisis to protecting wetlands, or housing or other things. They truly want to find pragmatic solutions. I commend them. I like collaborating with them. They truly have their heart in the right place when it comes to housing.
At the conference I spoke with an economist from the CMHC. He told me that if we do nothing else in Quebec in the next 10 years and allow builders and developers to get on it with, then 500,000 housing units will be built. There will be all sorts of housing types, condos, low-income housing, but 500,000 housing units in total will be built.
Canada is the worst country in the G7 when it comes to housing units per 1,000 people. There are 427 housing units per 1,000 people in the country, but that number went down in the past three or four years to 424. It is crazy when we think about it.
Canada is the worst country in the G7 in terms of average housing numbers, the number of units. That is where the crisis lies. We need to build housing. We need to take action since private developers do not seem to be doing the job.
In short, he was saying that 500,000 units would be built whether the government intervenes or not. An additional 1.1 million units are required in Quebec alone to address the two priority issues of accessibility and affordability. That is another 600,000. The government needs to show concern and take action to ensure that 600,000 units are built. We are far off the mark.
The major national housing strategy provided for $72 billion over 10 years. The government said that housing would get built and that is the direction it would take.
The government always forgets to say that the $72 billion is not just what the government will contribute. A lot of that consists of loans. It also includes investments by provinces, municipalities and agencies. That is worth clarifying.
According to the National Housing Council, 35,000 units were built in the last five years, even though we are halfway through the strategy's timeline. Another 600,000 units need to be built in Quebec alone. We are clearly far from our goal.
About 60,000 units have been renovated. Let us call it 100,000, to be optimistic. There are 100,000 units that have been built. That is not even close to what we need. The government needs to wake up and face the facts.
I am a dreamer. During the conference, which was held in Laval, I saw something that really impressed me; it impressed everyone there. The former mayor of Vienna came to talk about her city. One hundred years ago, the City of Vienna took the bull by the horns. It recognized that housing was a problem and that governments would have to invest money and tackle the problem head on. Today, 62% of the housing in Vienna is social housing. The citizens pay for it with a blanket 1% property tax. That generates about $350 million per year, and the city continues to build and maintain the housing stock. The buildings themselves are amazing. We tend to think that social housing is for the poor, but people from all walks of life live in Vienna's subsidized housing, from doctors and engineers to psychologists and labourers. There is diversity. There are bike paths and shops that sell organics. It is the stuff of dreams.
Things are not the same here as they are there, but there is certainly a need. I keep visiting organizations all over the place.
That is the cause of the crisis. The government did understand this at one time. It realized it had to invest in social housing. After World War II, the government launched major programs. They were eliminated in 1993. The Conservatives said that they were ending the programs and would no longer be investing in housing. On the campaign trail, Jean Chrétien said that the Liberals would reinstate this program and that it was important. Once he was elected, however, he cut the program.
Had the government continued to invest as much as it did between 1950 and 1993, there would be an additional 80,000 social housing units in Quebec alone. We could have housed so many people with that many more units, but that is not what happened.
In Longueuil alone, it would take $500 million to solve the housing crisis. A mayoral candidate talked about this at a debate last year. I think the figures were about right. There is a shortage of 2,000 social housing units just in Longueuil, 23,000 in Montreal and 50,000 in Quebec. These people are inadequately housed.
Let us talk about the $500 that this bill provides. It is not a bad thing. Who could be against it? Had we invested earlier, however, we would not have to be handing out these amounts and people would have housing.
Obviously, I am not an economist. I have incredibly brilliant colleagues who could explain this much better than me. If there were more housing, the housing units we have would cost less. It is pretty straightforward. Even I understand that concept, if my colleagues can believe it. What we need to do is invest in housing.
We support this $500 payment, but if we do not address the current housing crisis in a meaningful way, we will find ourselves facing the same problem again next year.
We will find ourselves right back here next year, but at that time, we will have to send a cheque for $500 or $700. In subsequent years, it will be cheques for $800 or $1,200, and it will never end. We need to implement meaningful measures now to deal with one of the biggest crises that Canada has experienced since Confederation.
1610 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speeches are always so enthusiastic, entertaining and really on point.
I have to agree with everything he said, pretty much. I agree that the $500 for rental support is basically a part-time solution, just as the dental care solution in this bill is basically a down payment on a real program that will help all Canadians.
This is more of a comment. I was going to bring up Vienna as an example and then the member mentioned it. I think we in Canada have to look beyond our borders and certainly beyond North America for the solution we need for the housing crisis. One of our problems is that we live next to the United States, which does not provide a lot of those solutions.
I want to thank the member for his speech.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understood whether there was a question in my colleague's comment, but I thank him for his comment nonetheless.
I will take this opportunity to talk about homelessness, which is an important issue. Obviously, if we do not deal with housing, sooner or later there will be homeless people on the street. During the pandemic, the government launched some decent programs to fight homelessness. A very important resource was created in my riding, and we would like to see it become permanent. However, we are not sure whether the government will continue to fund these projects, and we have to be careful about that.
I would also like to say that the government has launched a program that is pretty good. It is called the rapid housing initiative, or RHI. It is a good program because 100% of the housing is paid for. The government contributes all the necessary funding, so organizations do not have to chase down three or four different grants. The government should be putting more money into this program.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will follow the NDP member and thank my Bloc colleague for a very exciting and passionate speech.
I agree on the housing issues, especially with his comment that this is just a band-aid solution that is being put forth. It does not get to the root crux of the need for more housing and for more rental units across Canada.
I have talked about these issues with my constituents when I have had housing task force meetings. What they seem to be okay with, even the developers, in order to increase more affordable units across the country and across the riding is putting in a bit of a mandate for developers so they have to hedge so many units to be affordable. The biggest concern and push-back I got was about whether it would be the same for everybody.
Has the member heard similar stories in his riding?
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is indeed a worthwhile measure, but it is up to cities, municipalities and urban centres. In Quebec, some cities, such as Montreal, are trying to do that, and the mayor of Montreal is a huge proponent.
There are problems though. Some local governments impose penalties on developers that do not build a certain proportion of social housing, affordable housing or family housing. A few months ago, I read an article that said developers often try to get around that requirement. They promise that 20% of their units will be affordable, but they do not follow through because they would rather pay the penalties and build condos for the upper class.
That is why it is not a perfect solution, but it is not bad.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, my apologies for putting you through such linguistic gymnastics toward the end of the session this week and right before Thanksgiving.
On that note, I would like to wish everyone in the chamber and everyone across the country a happy Thanksgiving.
I am honoured today to rise with respect to my private member's bill, which is Bill C-281, the international human rights act. Before I get into the substance of the speech, I would like to start by thanking some important people who have been critical to getting this bill to the floor of the House of Commons.
I would like to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who was instrumental in coming up with this idea and who worked alongside me. He is constantly fighting for people around the world and pushing for the good causes of human rights.
I would also like to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who was a driving force behind getting the Magnitsky act in Canada. His tireless and relentless work for the people of Ukraine is admirable, and I thank him very much for laying the foundations for what most of this bill deals with.
Getting into the substance of this legislation, as Canadians we are incredibly fortunate. We live in a country where democratic and human rights are almost taken for granted. Sadly, there are billions of people in this world who do not have the comfort and security of knowing that their minimal basic human rights are protected. Many of them spend nearly every waking hour wondering what action the government will take or what steps the government is taking against them to violate their human rights and cause them and their family members pain. They live in waking fear of the government just because they want to express their beliefs and thoughts or want to be their authentic selves.
While it may be naive to believe that legislation created here or in any parliament around the world can bring peace and security to people everywhere, it does not mean that we should not start along that journey or that we cannot start the journey toward providing basic human rights wherever we live. Whether someone is born in Canada or Venezuela, everyone should have access to basic rights. No one should have to live in constant fear of their government.
To get into the substance of my bill, it seeks to do two primary things through four significant amendments. First, it seeks to help the government hold to account some of the worst violators of human rights in the world. Second, it seeks to provide a little more peace and security to people in Canada and around the world.
As I said, the legislation contains at least four significant amendments to help those who want to protect the vulnerable in Canada and around the world. The first section imposes certain reporting requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs in relation to international human rights. This includes the requirement of a publication about their activities every year. This report would include the names and circumstances of individuals the Canadian government and the Department of Foreign Affairs are advocating for and working to get released. They are prisoners of conscience being held simply because of the beliefs and thoughts they have about the betterment of their countries.
These reporting obligations are not in any way meant to restrict or obstruct the Department of Foreign Affairs and the important work it does. Rather, this section is designed to support the department. We believe that we can bring more oxygen into the room so that NGOs and the public will be in a better position to pressure governments around the world to release these individuals, who are working so hard for the betterment of their countries and fighting for human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
We ultimately believe as Conservatives that sunlight is nearly always the best disinfectant. By raising public awareness in Canada and abroad about the incarceration and sometimes, sadly, the torture of prisoners of conscience, people who are suffering human rights violations, we can help drive that out. We can change that potentially, leading to the freedom of prisoners of conscience and advocates of democracy, women's rights, LGBTQ2 rights and freedom.
We firmly believe that if we can get this more into the public sphere so that Canadians know of the suffering that is going on around the world, they will become more engaged and involved. We can then bring people like the two Michaels home earlier and reduce the suffering of Canadians and, really, the many people around the world who are being held simply for being who they are.
The next section deals with the Magnitsky act. The Magnitsky act is, of course, named after Sergei Magnitsky. Sergei was a relentless champion fighting against Russian corruption at the time. He saw his country, unfortunately, governed too often by corruption, and he pushed hard and fought back. Unfortunately, the consequences for him were dire. He was imprisoned. His medical conditions were completely ignored by his captors. Eventually, he was tortured and beaten to death for fighting corruption. In his name, Magnitsky acts have been passed by parliaments around the world, in Canada and the United States, among other countries.
The Magnitsky act seeks to put sanctions on individuals who are human rights violators so that these people cannot just walk around our world scot-free without paying the price or without having any accountability for the horrible actions they have committed against some of the best people humanity has to offer.
My private member's bill seeks to amend the Magnitsky act to make sure that, within 40 days of either the House of Commons or Parliament passing a motion to sanction an individual or a group of individuals, the Department of Foreign Affairs will have to report back. That would enforce a greater degree of accountability. If, in fact, either the Senate, the House of Commons or both have deemed that Magnitsky sanctions should be enforced, I think it is at least reasonable for the foreign affairs department to come to a parliamentary committee and explain the reason an individual is not being sanctioned or why an individual is being sanctioned.
These individuals are committing some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. If the will of Parliament, ultimately the House of Commons, is the will of the people, and the will of 37 million people is that someone be sanctioned, at the very least, the Department of Foreign Affairs should be able to, within 40 days, come to a parliamentary committee and explain itself.
This bill does not even go so far as to say that we force the Department of Foreign Affairs to sanction someone. All it is asking for is an explanation of why or why not, which makes sense because, in some cases, there may be legitimate reasons for why not. I cannot foresee any, but all we are asking for is that they explain it.
We thoroughly believe that, by having this accountability mechanism and reporting mechanism, we will get more individuals sanctioned. Right now, we are not having enough people sanctioned under the Magnitsky act. Initially, in 2018 when the Magnitsky act was passed, we had a flurry of individuals in Myanmar, Russia, Venezuela and others who were all sanctioned.
Since then, we have had very little activity from the government on that front. In fact, no one has been sanctioned under the Magnitsky act since the initial sanctions, and the last one was in Saudi Arabia. Since then, we have not had any. We want to put this reporting and accountability mechanism in place to encourage the government to utilize the tools it has to sanction those individuals who are committing the most vile of crimes and who are violating people's human rights, like the activities we have seen recently in places like Iran and Russia, and to explain why or why not the government is choosing to sanction these individuals.
At the very least, even if we do not encourage the government to sanction more people, which we hopefully do, we will be putting more transparency and accountability around the Magnitsky sanctions. As I said, the Magnitsky sanctions, as reported by many individuals, are actually our most powerful tool to enforce human rights around the world. If we are not using it, we should at least know why.
In fact, Bill Browder, who is one of the biggest drivers of the Magnitsky act, not just in Canada but around the world, in creating and enforcing the Magnitsky act, actually said before a committee of this very Parliament that the lack of use of the Magnitsky act sanctions should have a parliamentary review.
We are acting on Mr. Browder's great advice and in this private member's bill we are asking for a 40-day review any time this House or the Senate deems that Magnitsky act sanctions should be put in place.
The next section is the Broadcasting Act. The bill states:
...this enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to prohibit the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence in relation to a broadcasting undertaking that is vulnerable to being influenced by a foreign national or entity that has committed acts or omissions that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide or that is subject to sanctions under the...(Sergei Magnitsky Law) or under the Special Economic Measures Act.
I have already defined what the Magnitsky act is. The Special Economic Measures Act is the legislation under which the government has imposed sanctions recently on Iran, and we thank it for doing so. We continue to ask that it list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, but at least it has gone this far and we look forward to the government taking a stronger role. Quite frankly, I look forward to its support on this legislation as a way of demonstrating that the government is serious about protecting human rights around the world.
I will go back to the amendment to the Broadcasting Act. In layman's terms, what this amendment would do is take an important step in preventing countries around the world that are either committing genocide or have been found guilty of the most significant of human rights violations from utilizing Canadian airwaves to spread their propaganda. The Government of Canada formally removed Russia Today and RT France from the list of non-Canadian programming services and stations authorized for distribution on March 16 on the basis that the distribution of these services were not in the public interest, as their content appears to constitute abusive comments or is likely to expose the Ukrainian people to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin and that their programming is antithetical to the achievement of the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act.
Conservatives applaud and support the CRTC's decision to pull their licences, but it had to take this broad approach in its definition because there was no current mechanism to pull Russia TV when it was clearly using Canadian airwaves just to spread its propaganda. This amendment would give the CRTC an appropriate mechanism so it does not have to try to wiggle around existing legislation. It will have a specific tool to say that country X is committing genocide and spreading its propaganda in our country and the CRTC does not believe it should spreading propaganda in our country. Instead of having to sort of gerrymander around the rules in order to pull out the propaganda that is for malicious and nefarious reasons, we believe that this modest amendment would allow the CRTC to protect vulnerable Canadians.
The last part of this legislation is the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Currently, cluster munitions kill thousands of people around the world. In fact recently there was an increase because the Russians have used them in Ukraine, and fully 97% of people caught by these submunitions, which are basically a bomb that blows up and puts smaller bombs all over, were civilians. Of them, 90 of those individuals were children. This is not a weapon of war. This is a weapon of terror that hurts civilians, specifically children. We need to get these banned and that is why I am proud that Stephen Harper took the first step. This step would also deny financing to companies that are building and producing cluster munitions. It would prevent it. This has been successful in other countries, so Conservatives believe this will go a great deal of the way to reducing civilian and children casualties.
I thank the House for what I anticipate to be overwhelming support to help make life a little more peaceful, a little more secure, and to hold the most awful perpetrators accountable.
2208 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing forward this bill.
One of the areas that I was looking through in the bill would call on the government to publicize a list of human rights defenders whose release the government is actively seeking. For human rights defenders in repressive states, this could not only impede diplomatic actions and our ability to support these individuals, but in a country with known reports of the use of torture this could potentially endanger their lives.
Is my colleague across the aisle aware of this, and is he amenable to amending the bill so as to not inadvertently endanger the lives of human rights defenders?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her thoughtful contributions. Certainly, when we get the bill to committee, I am open to any amendments that would make this legislation better.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South for his speech and for his bill.
I wonder if he could comment on the issue of cluster munitions. We know that the United States is not a signatory to the Dublin convention and that it manufactures this type of weapon.
Bill C‑281 seeks to expand the list of people who would be targeted by the Canadian restrictions. I wonder whether, as members of Parliament, we are not running the risk of being lobbied by American weapons retailers to ensure that shareholders or people involved in these companies, for example, are not targeted by the bill.
Does my colleague share my concern?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent question.
The question is extremely well framed. I actually ran a bit short of time and wanted to talk about this so I thank the member for the opportunity. Political pressure has been shown to be incredibly powerful. Textron, which is one of the largest arms manufacturers located in the United States, stopped producing cluster munitions and specifically stated it was because of political pressure. Therefore, with things like this legislation, which would prevent the funding through Canadian businesses of cluster munitions, not only do we have a hard line in stopping them but we also continue to ramp up the political pressure. I would be glad to work alongside the member to stop the manufacturing of cluster munitions throughout the world.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for introducing this important bill. Canada has not yet responded to the United Nations call for Canada to develop an international human rights action strategy. I wonder if the member would agree to amend the bill so that it would require Canada to develop such an important strategy.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I said to the other member's question, I am happy to have discussions in committee about any amendments that may make the legislation better. I am not overly familiar with the issue that the member raised, but I am happy to sit down and would love to go to her home riding and discuss it there.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this legislation here to the chamber. I am proud to have seconded it.
My question is around the Magnitsky act and just the importance of it. The member highlighted clearly why it is so important, but specifically he did indicate that it has not been used nearly as well or as much as it could be. I want the member to elaborate on what that does to Canada's reputation on the international stage as a leader for defending human rights right across this globe, and how our taking these actions would be much more beneficial and why it is so important.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the excellent question as we want to continue to project Canada's image as a country that protects the most vulnerable and fights for human rights. Every time that we do not go forward when we should with imposing of the Magnitsky schedule, that reputation unfortunately takes a little damage.
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to take a moment to wish a happy Thanksgiving to all members and all employees of the House of Commons.
I hope everyone has an opportunity to spend time with their loved ones this holiday weekend.
Canada's commitment to uphold human rights abroad, as well as policies and actions undertaken to protect these rights internationally, are a frequent focus of parliamentarian attention. Recent events on the international stage have continued to shed light on grave and reprehensible human rights violations, and our government has promised to continue to explore all options when it comes to holding those responsible to account and defending human rights here and around the world.
Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to elaborate on Canada's active engagement in advancing international human rights efforts globally, including with regard to human rights issues raised in Bill C-281, which was introduced in the House of Commons by the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.
Bill C-281, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, would amend various pieces of legislation on which I will expand. I believe MPs around the room agree that Canada should continue to uphold its commitment to human rights in a strong and meaningful way.
We know that only so much can be changed in the halls of power. Without the active and meaningful engagement of those whose human rights have been violated or who are in situations of particular vulnerability, change cannot last nor can our policies be effective. That is why Canada continues to engage with indigenous peoples, diaspora communities, activists, women's rights organizations, civil society, journalists and human rights defenders. Without their lived experience, expertise and efforts to promote and protect human rights in Canada and around the world, human rights violations and abuses would remain unacknowledged.
“Voices at Risk: Canada’s Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders” is a clear statement of Canada's commitment to supporting the vital and courageous work of human rights defenders. The guidelines outline Canada's approach and offer practical advice to Canadian diplomats to support human rights defenders. They reflect the experience gained by Canada through multilateral and bilateral engagement, and are informed by the work and advice of Canadian civil society organizations and human rights defenders themselves.
However, the colloquial term “prisoner of conscience”, as used in the bill, does not have an agreed upon international or domestic legal definition. Even labelling an individual as a human rights defender based on available definitions can be challenging in all but the most unambiguous cases.
A publicized list that sets out the names and circumstances of human rights defenders detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working on may impede diplomatic actions and Canada's support for these individuals, potentially endangering their safety and, in more serious cases, their lives.
I would like to thank the member who introduced this bill for his agreement to be amendable. We should be mindful to apply the principle of doing no harm. It respects the well-being and privacy of individuals and needs to be considered before sharing information with the public.
The Government of Canada takes the matter of imposing sanctions very seriously. As stated by our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada will continue to coordinate with like-minded partners to seek to change the behaviour of those who commit human rights atrocities. We consider autonomous sanctions as just one component of Canada's wider foreign policy options in the protection of human rights.
Canada is judicious in its approach to imposing sanctions, both against individuals and against states, and is committed to their targeted and coordinated use when appropriate. Canada has established a rigorous due-diligence process to consider and evaluate threats to international peace and security and possible cases of human rights violations or corruption anywhere in the world within the context of other ongoing efforts to promote human rights and combat corruption.
Canada has a history of taking action to rid the world of cluster munitions, including through our ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, known as the convention, in 2015, and by support demining efforts. We recognize the devastating impact they have on civilians, and we will continue to support a wide range of activities in this regard, knowing that these actions will actively save lives.
Cluster munitions pose an immediate threat to civilians during conflict by randomly scattering submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. They continue to pose a threat post conflict by leaving remnants, including submunitions that fail to explode upon impact, becoming de facto land mines. These explosives kill and harm victims around the world indiscriminately.
International humanitarian law prohibits the indiscriminate use of any weapon, including cluster munitions, and prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians. We call on all states to join the convention, cease to use these weapons and destroy their stockpiles. We would also stress that non-party states already have a legal obligation during armed conflicts to refrain from indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks with any weapon, including cluster munitions.
Canada is fully committed to the goals of the convention and has ensured, through the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, that it will meet all obligations of the convention that will require implementation through domestic law. Among other things, Canada cannot itself use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile or transfer cluster munitions or expressly request their use when the choice of munitions used is within our exclusive control.
Canada welcomes the large number of actions dedicated to gender mainstreaming within the Lausanne Action Plan, committing member-state parties to the convention to stronger gender inclusion in combatting cluster munitions.
I will now discuss the Broadcasting Act.
Media can play an important role in the promotion of human rights. Communication regulators like the CRTC need to be mindful of their role in advancing regulation in the public interest, particularly when it comes to fundamental issues related to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. As the CRTC recently stated, “Freedom of speech and a range of perspectives are a necessary part of our democracy. However, it is a privilege and not a right to be broadcast in Canada.”
Our ability to address human rights issues as parliamentarians directly affects Canada's ability to create change and effectively impact other intersecting issues, including COVID-19, migration, climate, emerging tech and counterterrorism, which all have human rights dimensions. Bill C-281 canvasses many of these intersecting themes.
We look forward to working with the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, as well as with all members of this House, to find concrete and durable solutions to address the human rights challenges of tomorrow.
1151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
