Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 58
View Laurin Liu Profile
NDP (QC)
View Laurin Liu Profile
2015-05-26 11:30 [p.14149]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to comment on the Liberal Party's opposition motion on science in Canada.
The motion calls on the government to rescind all rules and regulations that muzzle government scientists; consolidate government-funded or -created science so that it is easily available to the public at large through a central portal; create a Chief Science Officer whose mandate would include ensuring that government science is freely available to those who are paying for it, namely, the public; and allow scientists to be able to speak freely on their work with limited and publicly stated exceptions.
I am delighted to support this motion because it covers most of the scientific community's key demands of the government.
Let us remember that the NDP already presented two opposition motions: the first, on June 5, 2012, condemned cuts to science and the muzzling of scientists; the second, on March 20, 2013, urged the government to support the NDP plan for scientific integrity.
This subject is particularly timely today considering that the ACFAS conference will be held this week in Rimouski. This is the Francophonie's most important scientific event. Those in attendance all agree that the scientific community is stunned at the federal government's attitude toward research.
The president of ACFAS, Louise Dandurand, condemned the budget cuts and job losses in the sciences, and had very harsh words for the fact that federal government scientists cannot communicate with their peers.
She said:
Science is built on the exchanges among researchers. The fact that government scientists cannot communicate with their peers, either in Canada or abroad, impoverishes the very essence of science.
She also said:
The federal government's unenlightened approach is unfortunate and dangerous, and the consequences for the advancement of science will be felt in the long term in Canada.
Another message coming out of the ACFAS conference is the importance of advancing science done in French. In an interview with the Devoir this week, that was the message of the honorary chair of the 83rd ACFAS conference, who is none other than Rémy Quirion, the chief scientist for Quebec.
However, the Conservative government is refusing to listen. It closed a dozen scientific libraries, including the only French library at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The government has also imposed restrictions and even prohibitions on communications about scientific work, even after the research has been published.
Last week, the testimony of Steve Campana, a former scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, confirmed what we have known for years: the government forces scientists to go through a complicated process to be able to talk to the media, and requests for interviews are often denied.
The Conservatives have also prevented federal scientists from taking part in scientific conferences to share the results of their research, thereby obstructing our international collaboration.
In 2013, the NDP moved a motion to end the muzzling of scientists once and for all. Motion M-453 would allow scientists to speak publicly about their work and would prohibit ministerial staff from unduly limiting media access or suppressing scientific results.
I also want to talk about the research imbalance the Conservative government has created. Since 2012, the government has overhauled its innovation assistance programs, which translates into eliminating support for basic research in order to focus only on business-led research.
Research currently being done in Quebec is essentially non-directed research. It represents 86% of all scientific research done in Quebec. It is especially important to support this type of research because in science, we never know where the next discovery will come from.
The Conservatives' approach will not only eliminate the first component of the mission of the National Research Council, established in 1916 to support research and the development of commercial innovation, but it will also have a disastrous impact on our scientific heritage and on science that is done for the public good.
That is why the NDP has been proposing that the government create the position of chief science officer since 2013. Prominent members of the scientific community support the NDP's proposal to create an independent scientific watchdog organization in order to ensure that federal scientists are no longer muzzled and to give Parliament impartial scientific information. Let us remember that, in 2012, the Government of Quebec decided to appoint a chief science officer. Some countries, such as England, have had this type of watchdog for about 50 years. About a dozen countries have chief science officers, but Canada does not have such a watchdog at the federal level.
What is more, this week, the Institut de la statistique du Québec, or ISQ, is expected to table a damning report on the damage caused by the elimination of the mandatory long form census. If research suffers, so does the quality of government decisions. Here are a few questions that we need reliable statistics to answer. Where should we build new day care centres? Has the state of rental apartments improved? Are the economic aid programs for the regions working? These questions will remain unanswered without proper statistics.
The ISQ's study also shows that the national household survey, which replaced the census in 2011, is unreliable and more expensive to use. At the time, the government justified this change by saying that it was protecting people's privacy. That is rather ironic given that this same Conservative government introduced Bill C-51. Five years later, former chief statistician Munir Sheikh, who resigned in protest against the government's decision, is saying that it is impossible to rely on the new survey.
A joke that is going around the scientific community sums up the situation best. “Guess what? Canada managed to eliminate poverty. How did it do that? By simply eliminating the mandatory census.”
Alain Bélanger an expert in population studies, language and immigration at the INRS said:
For the past five years, I have been wondering whether I should continue to conduct social science research or I should stop. The data for all of the subjects that interest me are skewed.
We cannot allow science in Canada to continue its free fall.
At a conference in Halifax in 2014, Peter Nicholson, the deputy chief of staff for policy in the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada from 2003 to 2006 and the former special advisor to the Secretary-General of the OECD, said:
This is a portrait of unmanaged decline that began with the previous Liberal administration. It really does signal a vacuum of leadership and it's a very serious problem because we definitely need a healthy and well-motivated scientific capacity to support the mandates of government departments and agencies.
I would remind members that the 1995 budget announced some significant cuts to science and technology spending, even though Paul Martin, the finance minister at the time, had promised to spare the councils and agencies that provide grants for university research in science, engineering, medicine and social sciences.
Under the Liberals, the industry portfolio was very hard hit, losing 42% of its program spending over two years. The abolition of the highly acclaimed defence industry productivity program had a huge impact on the aerospace industry. University scientific research suffered a 25% drop in funding in constant dollars. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, which subsidizes university research, had its budget cut by 14%. The Canadian Space Agency lost 15% of its budget.
We need a government that will invest in science and technology in Canada. This is not just about discovery and the pursuit of excellence. This is also about social justice, democracy, our heritage and our scientific future. Instead of mortgaging that future, the NDP will stand up for science and scientific integrity.
I would just like to add a comment on the Conservative government's budget for this year. The government had an opportunity to repair the damage it did to science in Canada.
Unfortunately, it did not change its approach, and it is continuing to invest solely in business-led research. The government's approach is not working when it comes to protecting Canadians' health and environment, and it is not working for Canada's economy or for industry either. We are in dire need of a change, and that is why I support this motion.
View Leon Benoit Profile
CPC (AB)
View Leon Benoit Profile
2015-05-25 13:59 [p.14053]
Mr. Speaker, the most important issues I have dealt with in my 22 years as a member of Parliament are pro-life issues.
These are the issues dealing with abortion and end of life, such as physician-assisted suicide. They have been the most important but also the most difficult, and sometimes frustrating, to deal with. Often it seems that progress is too slow, but on the other hand, we do need to recognize that progress is being made.
On May 14, the annual pro-life rally was held on Parliament Hill. The turnout was very encouraging, with a huge crowd of about 25,000 people, the largest on record.
As usual, the approach was extremely positive with a focus on helping young women and men who were struggling with the decision to possibly abort their unborn child, to find the support they needed to decide to have the child. Barring serious health concerns, this is always the right decision. Information and help are offered to parents to decide what to do after that.
Progress is being made and pro-lifers here and across Canada should be proud and thankful for this.
View Joan Crockatt Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Etobicoke Centre.
Tonight we vote on this important legislation, the anti-terrorism act, 2015, and I am very proud today to stand in support of it. This is really an important bill that would protect Canadians from those who have openly vowed to do us harm, particularly the international jihadi movement.
This bill has strong support from my constituents in Calgary Centre and from Canadians from coast to coast to coast in every province and in every single demographic. Still, there are a lot of myths being perpetuated about this bill, many of them by the opposition, and we have heard that today. Today I would like to debunk them.
Here is the reality. Unfortunately, we all know that the threat environment we face in Canada today has escalated considerably from what it used to be. We have seen the recent ISIS-inspired acts of terror against soldiers in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and here in Ottawa. In the House, we all lived through the shooting on Parliament Hill on October 22, 2014. Believe me, it brought home to me and to many Canadians the need to take these threats on our soil very seriously.
Thankfully, authorities have foiled planned attacks in places as close to home, for my constituents, as the West Edmonton Mall.
This bill would protect our security by giving CSIS the authority to act on serious threats to protect Canadians.
In the past, if CSIS had information on a planned terrorist attack that was about to take place in Canada, it had no authority to go out and disrupt that terrorist plot. This legislation would not only give it the power to disrupt terror plots but would allow the security agencies to receive information from other government departments so that they could protect Canadians from terrorists. It is important to note that CSIS's actions are subject to a review afterward by a committee of experts in the field, SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
Contrary to what we keep hearing from the NDP, the right to protest would be protected. In fact, we have listened to Canadians, and we specifically excluded protests from this legislation right from the get-go. To make it crystal clear, in response to feedback from Canadians, after the fearmongering of the opposition, when the anti-terrorism act, 2015 came to committee, we reviewed it and reworded the bill. The bill was changed from allowing lawful advocacy, protest, and dissent to removing the word “lawful” so that Canadians' right to protest in general or to participate in civil disobedience would not be affected.
We listened. The right to protest is an important freedom to Canadians, and this bill and our government fully recognize that.
We also recognize our duty to update our laws in the face of new threats so that we can keep Canadians safe.
There are four key measures contained in this bill. The first would create a system for internal government information-sharing. The second would improve our passenger protect program, known as the no-fly list. The third would make it a crime to disseminate jihadi terrorist propaganda. The fourth would give CSIS the ability to disrupt planned terrorist attacks before they happen. This is absolutely common sense, and Canadians get that.
People in my riding are concerned about the threat to Canada by the jihadi terrorist movement, and they told me again as recently as last weekend. They are also concerned, frankly, about the response of the NDP and the Liberals to terrorists.
The NDP has consistently put its head in the sand about the fact that Canadians are being directly targeted by jihadi terrorists that oppose our values and our way of life. The NDP leader even refused to call the horrific attacks in October what they were, jihadi terrorism, despite very clear evidence. The Liberal leader made juvenile jokes about Canada wanting to show the size of its CF-18s when it moved to confront this terrorist threat.
Let us debunk some other misconceptions advanced by the NDP and the Liberals. If it is through lack of doing the homework Canadians expect of them, I can help them with that.
Some have said that aboriginal and environmental protests could come under surveillance by CSIS, so let us read the text in the bill. It says that information could be shared between government institutions regarding “interference with critical infrastructure”. If one read that and only that, one might suppose that protesting the construction of a pipeline could, in theory, meet that definition.
However, if one read slightly further, one would see that it would not meet the core of the definition, which is an activity, or activities, that “undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada”. That is a very different measure and distinguishes between peacefully protesting against a pipeline, which is protected, and bombing a pipeline and endangering the lives of Canadians, which is not.
I have already debunked the myth that CSIS would not require warrants to disrupt this kind of serious threat. That is just not true.
Right now, CSIS is restricted from engaging in any disruption activities. It could not even approach parents of a suspected radical and encourage them to dissuade their son from his radical beliefs. Without Bill C-51, CSIS can only talk to parents to gather intelligence. Under Bill C-51, CSIS could talk to parents and ask them to speak to their children to help stop a threat or to stop their engaging in conversations in online chat rooms.
This hits really close to home for me and my riding of Calgary Centre. In my riding, several young men, born and raised there, have been radicalized into flying to Syria to join jihadist terrorist groups, including ISIL. Their parents are understandably distraught and have asked for help from the government. Christianne Boudreau, one of those distraught mothers, whose son went to Syria to fight with ISIS, where he was killed, called on the government to go further than just taking away the passports of radicalized young people. While she does not like all aspects of this bill, as I have said, she has called on Canada to start educating families so they can intervene before young people get to the point of radicalization. This bill would enable that.
She she has said that the propaganda is out there on social media and on the Internet and it is readily accessible.
This bill would tackle that problem by removing terrorist materials from the Internet. It would make promoting or advocating a terror act a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison. By the way, the RCMP has also been embarking on deradicalization strategies to help combat youth being lured onto a deadly path.
Here is another myth. Some people have said that this bill would curb free speech. Canada already has hate laws, but they apply only to hate speech against an “identifiable” group and as such can exclude general threats against Canada or all Canadians. These are exactly the kinds of threats used by ISIS and al Qaeda when referring to “the west” or “infidels” in their hate propaganda. The new definition would allow us to pursue the people who are radicalizing others through their propaganda and are advocating violence.
These are the tools our law enforcement agencies say they really need to face down this terrorist threat. Credible experts have widely come out in support of this bill. Scott Tod, the Deputy Commissioner of Investigations and Organized Crime for the OPP, had this to say:
Bill C-51 offers improvements for the federal police to share information among our justice sector partners, security partners, but more importantly and hopefully, with the community partners and government situational tables designed to reduce the terrorist threat and improve community safety and well-being.
That is something we all want.
Professor Salim Mansur, of the University of Western Ontario, said, “the measures...I believe, are quite rightly and urgently needed to protect and keep secure the freedom of our citizens”.
The Heritage Foundation said that Bill C-51 is, “a balance between greater physical protection without loss of civil liberties.... There is transparency and openness”.
This is an excellent bill that would help to protect Canadians. I am proud of this legislation. I am proud of the new investments we made in the budget, and I am grateful for the nearly $300 million earmarked to fight jihadi terrorism, which the NDP seems to pooh-pooh. I am pleased that we have doubled the budget of SIRC to allow for more robust review and accountability.
I believe that Bill C-51 would give Canadians what they want and expect from our government: a law that would protect both their safety and their freedom. The majority of Canadians support this bill, and when it comes to a vote tonight, I urge everyone in the House to vote in favour of it.
View Deepak Obhrai Profile
CPC (AB)
View Deepak Obhrai Profile
2015-05-05 18:33 [p.13499]
Mr. Chair, I rise today to express the grave concerns of the Government of Canada about the dire human rights situation in Iran. Abuses and violations happen regularly and are pervasive throughout Iran's judicial system and extensive security apparatus.
Over the past two years, the Iranian regime has had some success in reshaping its public image. Iran's president continues to make public comments that allude to the support for rights and freedoms for the people of Iran. Sadly, this slick diplomacy and charm offensive is contradicted by the reality on the ground. The human rights situation remains as dismal as ever, with no measurable improvement since the 2013 election of President Rouhani.
Canada remains profoundly concerned by the alarming rate of executions in Iran, a rate that spiked considerably after the election of President Rouhani. In the first three and a half months of 2015, Iranian officials have already executed at least 300 people. Last year, Iranian authorities reportedly executed more than 750 people. We cannot know for sure how many, because the regime carries out hundreds of executions every year without officially acknowledging them. Many of the executions take place in public without fair and public trials, and sometimes without warning to the victim's family. The regime also continues to execute juvenile offenders.
On October 25, 2014, a 26-year-old woman, Reyhaneh Jabbari, was hanged to death, convicted of killing a man who she asserted was trying to sexually assault her. A 30-year-old man is on death row as we speak for a post he made on Facebook. Soheil Arabi, a husband and father, was sentenced to death for insulting the prophet in his Facebook posts. It is inconceivable to Canadians that someone could be executed for something that they posted on social media, but that is exactly what is planned for Mr. Arabi. His case is one example of the extraordinary restrictions on freedom of expression in Iran and the regime's increased targeting of average Iranians for their activities on the popular social media sites. This past fall, six young Iranians were sentenced to prison terms and lashes simply for dancing to a pop song about being happy in a YouTube video.
Iran is among the 10 most censored countries in the world, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and was the second highest jailer of journalists in 2014. Authorities regularly threaten, harass, and arbitrarily arrest journalists, as the regime exerts its control of information and any expression of dissent that might challenge its authority. The Washington Post's Tehran bureau chief, Jason Rezaian, has now been in prison for 283 days, facing trumped-up charges, including espionage, simply for reporting on issues of interest to the Iranian people.
The women of Iran face serious restrictions to their fundamental rights and freedoms. They are denied equality in law and in practice, rendering their full participation in political and economic life impossible. In the 2013 elections, all female presidential hopefuls were barred from running by Iran's Guardian Council. Iran has extraordinary female lawyers, but women are not permitted to preside over a court as a judge.
Women endure state-condoned harassment. This past fall, a number of women were attacked with acid by men on motorbikes believed to be targeting women who they saw as dressing immodestly. A number of draft laws and policies at different levels of government in Iran have emerged through 2013 and 2014 that aim to further limit women's rights, including by limiting equal access to the labour market with their male counterparts, access to birth control, and access to education.
Iran, like Canada, is a culturally and linguistically diverse country. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime views this rich diversity as a threat. Ethnic and religious minority communities in Iran face persistent marginalization, harassment, arbitrary arrests, and detention. Iran's Baha'i community has suffered some of the most overt state-led discrimination in Iran and has been especially targeted for intimidation and persecution. In October 2013, the Iranian security officials raided 14 Baha'i homes in the city of Abadeh. This past October, 79 Baha'i shops were closed by the authorities in the Kerman province after the shop owners closed their businesses to observe the Baha'i holiday.
Christian converts have also seen brutal treatment by authorities in Iran, including reports of violent raids on private gatherings, arbitrary arrests, and detentions.
We remain troubled by the deliberate failure of the Iranian regime to abide by its human rights obligations and commitments.
We cannot forget the case of the photographer, Zahra Kazemi, who was tortured and killed by Iranian officials while in detention.
It is because of these persistent human rights violations that Canada, in partnership with the strong cross-regional group of similarly concerned countries, leads the resolution in the United Nations General Assembly on the situation of human rights in Iran, which highlights and brings international scrutiny to bear on Iran's human rights record, calling on the government of Iran to fulfill its human rights obligations in law and in practice, and provide a public signal to human rights defenders that they are supported by the international community.
The 2014 resolution, drawing on credible and well-informed sources, including reports of the UN Secretary General and the UN Special Rapporteur, was successfully adopted with broad international support.
I am proud to convey Canada's support for those inside and outside Iran who have worked tirelessly for positive change in the country. Iranians deserve to live in freedom and have their rights respected.
View Wayne Marston Profile
NDP (ON)
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the human rights situation in Iran. It is extremely important that all members of the House send a very clear message that in Canada we support the aspirations of the Iranian people when they seek freedom, peace, and democracy. Parliament spoke strongly at the time of the election when people were being murdered in the streets of Iran and Tehran.
On this side of the House—and I would presume members of the government and other parties would agree with this—we think that Canada, in the view of New Democrats, has a very significant role to play, as we have continuously done, to point out those times when Iran has said yes to acceptance of the periodic review by the United Nations but never implemented any of the changes that were requested. The previous speaker talked about the annual execution rate in Iran and it being around 750. It is still a country that executes juveniles. I am not sure of the number, but I think it was 18 last year. Juveniles are executed. How can a regime do that?
I was involved for 28 years in the Canadian labour movement, so I am kind of sensitive to the next quote that I am going to read. It comes from an Amnesty International update on Iran. A gentleman by the name of Mansour Osanloo is an activist with the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, which is probably a very interesting title over there. An amalgamated transit union is what it would be here. He stated:
The labor movement has a deep impact on the struggle for human rights and democracy in Iran, and as the labor movement grows, it benefits the struggle for democracy and freedom. This is based on the fact that the labor movement involves the largest and most important segment of the masses into this struggle. The movement of workers as the builders of society, will inevitably push that society towards democracy. Labor movements which occur in the most widespread form will force the government and society to respond and take action. The involvement of the working class appearance in the social and political realm has been shown to increase the level of democracy in every society. It is clear that the labor movement can promote the distribution equality of within a...society.
That, of course, is a very aspirational statement. We are blessed in Canada. I felt blessed in 1996 when I led the largest civil demonstration in the history of our country, in the Hamilton's Days of Action, when 105,000 people protested, without one injury or arrest. That says a lot for the democracy of this country. They were protesting the Conservative government of Mike Harris, by the way, but were still treated with the dignity and respect that the people so yearn for in Iran.
I will read another quote from the same report. It stated:
It was said that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman. Today, it can be said that the Islamic republic is neither Islamic nor a republic. The Iran of today has become the Islamic republic of gangster capitalism, where an unholy alliance of the clerical establishment and the Revolutionary Guard Corps rule through economic patronage for the inner circle, together with torture at home and terrorism abroad.
This gentleman, Payam Akhavan, is a professor of international law at McGill University. He has spoken at the subcommittee on international human rights several times. He helps us with the update that we do to keep ourselves current on what is happening in Iran.
Along with the professor was Shirin Ebadi, a lawyer from Iran who for years spoke out publicly and risked her life. She received the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts. Today, she has to live outside of Iran for her own safety. These two witnesses were before our committee about two to three years ago and both made the same comment, which I think is worthy of our consideration. It was that the remedy for Iran has to come from within Iran, that we cannot remedy its problems from outside.
Going back to the aspirational quote from that labour leader, in that country, that kind of statement can put one in jail and cause one to be tortured. Evin Prison is notorious for the political activists kept behind its walls and the torture and treatment that happens to them.
In Iran, women face persistent, systemic discrimination in terms of family law. The following is a statement from Amnesty International.
New legislation being considered by Iran’s parliament is intended to roll back many of the gains women have made in the past decades and consign them to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
And on top of that, if they dare to protest about the inequities they suffer, they are sentenced to long prison terms, to be served in prisons where unsanitary conditions and medical neglect can quickly undermine their health.
This is the fate of Bahareh Hedayat, an activist with The Campaign for Equality, a grassroots initiative, and a member of the Central Committee of the Office for the Consolidation of Unity, a national student body which has been active in calling for political reform and opposing human rights violations in recent years. She is currently serving a ten-year prison sentence in Evin Prison.
Evin Prison, as members here will know, is one of the worst prisons on the face of the earth.
She was charged with a number offences, and they sound beyond belief. One of her offences was “interviews with a foreign media”—imagine, it was just an interview—“insulting the leader”, “insulting the president,” and “disrupting public order through participating in illegal gatherings”. We have to pause when we live in a country like Canada.
I just spoke a moment ago about the fact that we had a massive demonstration here, and there were no objections, but in Iran, for that she wound up with a 10-year sentence in Evin Prison.
She has already served half of her sentence and she should therefore be eligible for parole under Iranian law, but concerned human rights activists need to urge the Iranian government to release her now so that she can receive medical attention for her health, which she is not receiving in Evin Prison.
The Amnesty report goes on to talk about the treatment of minorities. The previous speaker spoke about the Baha'i and how they are denied religious freedom. They are the largest non-Muslim religious minority the government consistently discriminates against. At least 136 Baha'i have been held in Iranian prisons as of May 2014. State authorities have desecrated Baha'i cemeteries, including one in Shiraz, where the authorities began excavating in April.
Security and intelligent forces have also continued to target Christian converts from Islam. Persian-speaking Protestants, evangelical congregations, and members of home church movements are all persecuted by this government. Many face charges, such as acting against national security and propaganda against the state.
Imagine that following a religious practice is somehow propaganda, and even worse, propaganda against the state. However, it is not just Christians and Baha'i. Sunni Muslims, which are 10% of the population in Iran, are not allowed to build their own mosques, simply because they have a different view than the Shia view of Islam.
As we review from time to time the status and the situation in Iran, sadly, at this juncture, we have to say that things have not gotten better. Iran had a new leader, and there was great hope that there would be change. That has been a false front. Again, I think the patronage and the corruption is offending any chance of heading to a real democracy in Iran.
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
View James Bezan Profile
2015-05-05 21:27 [p.13521]
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my friend from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her excellent speech and for outlining how ethnic and religious minorities have been traumatized under the leadership of President Rouhani, and before that President Ahmadinejad. Of course, it is the Islamic Republic of Iran, under the leadership of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, that is orchestrating this repressive and regressive government.
Last year during Iran Accountability Week and the Iranian prisoner advocacy project, I advocated for a lady by the name of Reyhaneh Jabbari. She had been attacked in an attempted rape, and she killed her attacker. She was given a life sentence and ultimately was executed at the end of last year for defending herself against this assault.
We can look at jurisprudence in Canada and the rights we enjoy, including the freedom of speech. I want to add my voice to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the reprehensible comments made by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, because we have great rights in Canada, which I would say is one of the freest nations in the world, and those types of comments were completely unacceptable.
I would ask my colleague if she could talk about not only how ethnic minorities are continuing to be oppressed and discriminated against under the Iranian regime but about how women's rights have been violated and about all the political prisoners and student activists. Reyhaneh Jabbari was a student activist. That is really why she was arrested. The sexual assault, attempted rape, and the ultimate right to defend herself were trumped up charges to do away with someone who was standing up for her rights as a woman.
View Irwin Cotler Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Irwin Cotler Profile
2015-05-05 21:30 [p.13521]
Mr. Chair, in my earlier remarks this evening, I was summarizing the categories or areas of major human rights violations in Iran, reflective and representative of the state-sanctioned massive domestic repression.
I was discussing three categories: the wanton execution binge, the widespread and systematic torture, and the culture of impunity that underpins it. I will continue where I left off, which was with my discussion of a fourth category of human rights violations, namely the plight and pain of political prisoners. Iran continues to imprison human rights defenders, leaders of religious and ethnic minorities, journalists, bloggers, lawyers, artists, trade unionists, students, and leaders of civil society generally, let alone leaders of the political opposition, where the house arrest of 2009 presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have entered their fifth year.
Indeed, as Mark P. Lagon, president of Freedom House, testified today before our foreign affairs subcommittee on international human rights:
Iran holds at least 1,150 political prisoners, with likely far more, given many Iranian families' fear of government reprisal if they come forward.
Indeed, as he reported, a prominent human rights defender, Narges Mohammadi, was charged just last Friday with crimes against the state, the punishment for peaceful advocacy in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, a courageous challenge to the wanton executions in Iran.
Accordingly, as I mentioned earlier, as part of the Iranian political prisoner global advocacy project, I am continuing my advocacy on behalf of the seven imprisoned leaders of the Baha'i community, known as the Yaran, and have also taken up the case of Ayatollah Boroujerdi, an imprisoned senior Shiite cleric and long-time advocate for religious freedom in Iran.
These prisoners are representative of the criminalization of religious freedom in Iran and are also case studies of Iranian injustice, generally speaking.
It is important to name the Baha'i leaders. Fariba Kamalabadi, Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saeid Rezaie, Mahvash Sabet, Behrouz Tavakkoli, and Vahid Tizfahm were all sentenced, as I mentioned earlier, to 20 years' imprisonment in 2008, a virtual death sentence given the advanced age of many.
Their convictions and sentences were based on such trumped-up charges as “propaganda against the system”, reminiscent of the old Soviet tactic of “give us the people and we will find the crime”.
Indeed, the Iranian regime has made the very membership in and practice of the Baha'i religion a crime in itself. In effect, the persecution and prosecution of the Yaran is in standing violation of both Iranian law and international treaties to which Iran is a state party. These violations include arbitrary, illegal, and prolonged detention; torture and ill treatment; false charges, such as spreading corruption on earth, a capital crime; denial of the right to an effective trial; and hearings devoid of any semblance of due process before a politicized judiciary.
Like the Yaran, Ayatollah Boroujerdi is languishing in prison for crimes of conscience, including advocating for religious freedom where he has led benediction ceremonies in the presence of Shiites and Sunnis, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Baha'i. He has advocated for adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, calling for the abolition of capital punishment and for an end to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment such as torture, stoning, and whipping.
He has advocated for the separation of religion and state, and for the cause of universal justice, condemning thereby the abuse of radical and theocratic rule and terror, while establishing social welfare centres for helping the poor and disadvantaged.
Yet the price of his advocacy, as for so many of the other political prisoners, has been his own cruel and inhumane treatment during his imprisonment in solitary confinement, and more recently threats of execution.
As we have heard this evening, the Government of Iran seeks nuclear weapons, sponsors terrorism, spews hateful rhetoric, and tramples the human rights of its own people. For the remarkable and courageous individuals who dare to challenge the regime, telling their stories and taking up their case and cause is the very least we can do.
I will move now to a fifth category, which is the criminalization of freedom of expression, a mocking and criminal rejoinder to the just celebrated World Press Freedom Day.
While the Iranian regime continues to espouse principles of free speech and free press, and while the Iranian foreign minister, in the course of the P5+1 negotiations with Iran, said just last month that nobody is imprisoned in Iran for expressing their opinion, any rhetorical commitment is mocked by the reality of the criminalization of speech. Indeed, Amnesty International reported a sharp rise in arrests, prosecutions, and imprisonment of independent journalists in Iran that signals the authority's utter determination to crush hopes for increased freedom.
Indeed, as described in the recent report “Internet in Chains: The Front Line of State Repression in Iran”, released by the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, the Iranian national police force includes a designated cybercrime unit which is tasked with monitoring the online activities of civil and political activists and were responsible for the investigation and ultimately the arrest of Sattar Beheshti, who was tortured and died in custody. According to the report, cyberpolice continue to pressure Internet providers to provide them with evidence of online political activism.
In a word, and indeed as Mark Lagon testified today, Iran's media and online environment are among the most repressive in the world. Among the 65 countries studied for the Freedom on the Net report, Iran is ranked at the very bottom. Simply put, authorities restrict online access to information through control of Internet infrastructure, extensive website filtering, rampant surveillance, and systematic arrests. Millions of websites, including Facebook and Twitter, remain blocked for Iranian citizens while the president, cabinet officials, and the supreme leader use social media to connect to the world.
Last fall, Iran's supreme court upheld the death sentence of 30-year-old blogger Soheil Arabi for a Facebook post deemed insulting to religious sanctity. Other online offenders were sentenced to between 7 and 20 years for blogging for a technology website contributing to a Sufi website and Facebook post deemed blasphemous to the regime.
That brings me, very quickly, to a sixth category, and that is the continued repression of workers and trade unionists.
Simply put, independent labour unions continue to be banned and those who participate in protests are fired or summoned to court and subject to arrest. At least 230 people were arrested in peaceful labour protests over the past year, and nearly 1,000 were fired in February 2015 for participating in peaceful labour protests. As well, five labour leaders were arrested on the eve of International Workers Day.
Finally, reference has been made to this in the discussion this evening and so I will not elaborate, but I am referring here to an important and compelling category of human rights violations, and that is the ongoing repression of women.
Despite article 20 of the Iranian constitution purporting to protect gender equality and despite affirmations for human rights for women by Iranian leaders, Iranian women face widespread and systematic discrimination in many areas of life.
For example, under the Iranian civil code, women are unable to leave the country without their husband's consent. They can be forced into non-consensual sexual relations in marriage. As well, we are witnessing an increasing incidence of child, early and forced marriage. Vicious acid attacks against women continue to go unpunished. Pending legislation restricts the hours during which women are allowed to work, creating a hierarchy for public sector hiring that further marginalizes women.
Pending legislation would empower employers and members of religious militia to enforce the government's conservative dress code for women, curb the use of modern contraceptives, outlaw voluntary sterilization, and dismantle state-funded family planning programs.
Since 2013, authorities have banned women from 77 fields of study, effectively reversing hard-line educational achievement. Regrettably, rather than sanctioning Iran, UN members elected Iran to the UN women agency board, effectively promoting a culture of impunity and gender discrimination.
I will close by saying that I would hope that the take note debate this evening will not only further the case and cause of those imprisoned and heroic persons in Iran, but at the same time, will advance the case and cause of human rights in Iran, of democracy and liberty, and thereby, we in Canada will have made a modest contribution to the struggle for human rights as a whole.
View Rathika Sitsabaiesan Profile
NDP (ON)
Mr. Speaker, today I rise again to voice my opposition to Bill C-51 in its current form.
Each one of us knows terrorism is a real threat and we are all committed to keeping Canadians safe. However, Bill C-51 remains a reckless, dangerously vague and likely ineffective piece of proposed legislation. It would not do things that are proven to work and it puts politics ahead of protecting Canadians.
The members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard testimony from a range of experts. Many of these experts raised serious concerns about provisions in Bill C-51. The government also received amendments from the official opposition New Democrats and other parties. The government rejected the substance of these amendments. The government did make four amendments to the bill. Unfortunately, these amendments would do little to address the major concerns Canadians and experts have consistently raised about this bill.
Therefore, I stand proudly with my New Democrat colleagues as we continue to stand for privacy, national security, oversight and our civil liberties, while working to make our country safe from terrorism by advocating an evidence-based approach to anti-terrorism legislation.
In regard to privacy, 12 Canadian privacy commissioners have publicly criticized Bill C-51, but not one privacy commissioner was invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. These are the public authorities on privacy and should have been heard. In a written submission to the committee, Daniel Therrien, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, wrote:
However, the scale of information sharing being proposed [by Bill C-51] is unprecedented, the scope of the new powers conferred by the Act is excessive, particularly as these powers affect ordinary Canadians, and the safeguards protecting against unreasonable loss of privacy are seriously deficient. While the potential to know virtually everything about everyone may well identify some new threats, the loss of privacy is clearly excessive. All Canadians would be caught in this web.
Under the proposed legislation, law-abiding citizens could find their information shared by federal departments and agencies with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the Privacy Commissioner stated that Bill C-51 does not prescribe clear and reasonable standards for the sharing, collection, use and retention of personal information. Canadians have a legitimate right to privacy.
How can the government be so reckless with the personal information of Canadians? How can it allow the sharing of information without proper oversight and clear standards regarding the necessity for the sharing of this information? Furthermore, experts such as Craig Forcese have pointed out that Bill C-51 also would erode the individual's right to legal recourse. Under Bill C-51, as long as Canadian government officials share information in good faith, if people are tortured or their livelihoods lost, these individuals could not sue the Canadian government.
We were shocked and saddened by the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was tortured in Syria because of the information that was shared about him. Maher Arar was able to use legal recourse to get an apology and compensation from the government. If Bill C-51 becomes law, if anything like what happened to Maher Arar happened in the future, there would be no legal recourse for Canadians. As a nation, we should be ensuring that what happened to Maher Arar never happens again to another Canadian. We need to do that by ensuring there is oversight, and that the rights of our citizens are protected. We should not be allowing information to be shared with a little oversight and then stripping away the ways in which Canadians can hold their government accountable.
As I have stated in prior remarks, I am also concerned about the potential impacts of Bill C-51 on Canadians' freedom of speech and the right to protest. One of the four amendments that the government members accepted at committee stage changed the language to say that activity that undermines the security of Canada does not include advocacy, protest, dissent or artistic expression. However, any act that blocks infrastructure could be subject to disruption and covered as part of this anti-terrorism legislation.
In 2009, before I became a member of Parliament, many members of the Tamil community and other human rights activists were out on the streets trying to raise awareness about innocent people being killed in Sri Lanka. Each day in Ottawa, Toronto, and other cities across the country, people were engaging in lawful protest asking for the Canadian government to listen and take action.
On May 10, 2009, some of the protestors blockaded the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto. According to our experts, under Bill C-51, the blockade of the Gardiner Expressway could have been considered an activity that undermines the security of Canada, classified as blocking infrastructure and covered under this anti-terrorism legislation. On May 10, 2009, people blockaded the Gardiner Expressway to bring attention to people being displaced and killed senselessly in Sri Lanka. Should these people, seniors, children and families, who blockaded the Gardiner Expressway be called terrorists and subjected to additional surveillance? Is that fair?
In January 2013, six youths and a guide left on snowshoes on a walk to Ottawa in support of the Idle No More movement. They called their trek the Journey of the Nishiyuu, which means the “journey of the people” in Cree. In the final hours of the trek, the group numbered nearly 400 people, as other children and youth from Cree and Algonquin communities joined them along the way. I remember being one of the thousands more who joined them here on Parliament Hill as their journey came to an end. As people joined the trek, perhaps streets were blocked and traffic snarled. Should these youth be called terrorists and subject to additional surveillance?
We must make sure that the voices of people can be heard. We must make sure that dissent and protest are protected in our country. We must allow for the freedom of speech to remain a charter-protected right in our country. We cannot allow non-violent acts to be called terrorism, because they are not terrorism. They are non-violent acts that can help build our civic infrastructure and can result in positive changes in policies.
This omnibus bill is 62 pages long and its scope is unprecedented. I could continue to talk for a lot longer about the many ways in which the bill threatens the civil liberties we hold dear, but I think the point has been made, and I am sure I am running out of time. This bill remains reckless, vague, and likely ineffective.
What are some proven approaches to combat terrorism that are more likely to be effective? I will name a few from what the experts have cited.
The first is to provide appropriate resources for security and intelligence agencies to track and identify threats to public security. Former Ottawa police chief and current Senator Vern White said:
My biggest concern right now is, do we have the resources to focus energy on [radicalized] people out there that are concerning us? I’m not convinced we have those resources.
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson testified before the Senate that he has reallocated resources including hundreds of personnel from areas such as organized crime to counter terrorism. Why would the police not have adequate resources to fight terror? Organized crime also presents a public safety threat to Canada, so why is the RCMP being forced to make these reallocations? We know that between 2009 and 2014, annual RCMP spending decreased by $420 million, and between 2012 and 2014, 2,271 full-time equivalent positions were cut from the RCMP. In 2012-13, CSIS spending was cut by $44 million.
A second proven approach to combat terrorism that is more likely to be effective is oversight. Over the past five years, oversight mechanisms that are meant to hold the security and intelligence agencies accountable have faced cuts, and positions have been left vacant. Now Bill C-51 would further expand surveillance and the capacity to detain people, but does not expand oversight. Oversight could mean more diligence on the part of the security agents themselves, knowing that oversight bodies are in place.
A third measure is counter-radicalization programs. Working with at-risk communities and connecting with community and faith leaders to provide resources to defuse radicalization in integral parts of our communities is an integral part of proven anti-terror programs.
I know I am running out of time, so I just want to say that today I am proud to be standing with my New Democrat colleagues as we take our responsibility to stand up for Canada seriously. We are disappointed, though, that the third party Liberals seem to believe that supporting this bill and giving the Conservatives a blank cheque is the best way to protect Canadian freedoms. I am proud that the New Democrats are taking a principled stance and not supporting Bill C-51. We will continue to defend both our rights and our freedoms in this country.
View James Lunney Profile
Ind. (BC)
View James Lunney Profile
2015-04-01 15:31 [p.12662]
Mr. Speaker, there is a concerted effort by various interests in Canada to undermine freedom of religion in Canada. The government has established the Office of Religious Freedom under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs, with an excellent ambassador in Andrew Bennett at the helm. I have personally made the case for freedom of religion where developing democracies like the idea but struggle to implement the reality. It is something I hope to contribute to in the next phase of my life through the newly formed International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief, founded in part through the efforts of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
Last week, leaders of the faith community were here in Ottawa to express their alarm at increasing and unprecedented attempts to stifle freedom of religion, conscience, and expression in Canada. They identified deliberate attempts to suppress a Christian world view from professional and economic opportunity in law, medicine, and academia. I share these concerns, and I believe there is a growing and malignant trend by what some would call cyber trolls to engage, entrap, belittle, and embarrass politicians of faith over false constructs of the word “evolution”.
In the past month, there were a few words exchanged on social media, apparently inflammatory words: science, managing assumptions, and theory or fact related to macroevolution. My remarks were inflated by media, blended with other unrelated but alleged heretical statements, and became a top story on national media, creating a firestorm of criticism and condemnation. My profession and two institutes of higher learning were subject to slander, and constituents I have represented for 15 years were insulted in the fashion that most would find astounding in a mature democracy. Two other politicians at the provincial level were accosted, and I see this as evidence of a developing phenomenon of crowd shaming on what some would call the dark side of the Internet.
After 15 years of serving among members, most of my colleagues would know that I announced more than a year ago that I would not be seeking re-election, so why not just slough it off, shrug it off, let it blow over, and ride off into the next chapter of my life—why, indeed? Maybe it is because I have a background in science. My credentials, modest as they are, are superior on this file to those of many in the chamber and most of my critics. Maybe it is because I have Irish in me and I do not like to be bullied. Maybe it is because, in my time as an MP, I have been sued and exonerated by the courts over the use of the title “doctor”.
Maybe it is because, when I started my practice 40 years ago in Kitchener and 15 years later on Vancouver Island, there were senior practitioners who spent time in jail, accused of practising medicine without a licence. I admired them for their tenacity and clinical effectiveness, and I knew that I could improve my technical skills if I spent time with them, and in several cases I did. Maybe it is because I am tired of seeing my faith community mocked and belittled. To not respond is to validate my accusers and, worse yet, imply that I lack the courage of my convictions to stand up for what I believe. That is not a legacy I wish to leave behind.
Many colleagues represent constituents beyond the ones who elected them. I hope that no members of any faith community in Canada are compelled to defend the beliefs of their communities in the future. Freedom of religion and conscience are fundamental freedoms in Canada. Bigotry cloaked in defence of science is as intolerable and repugnant as bigotry from any other source. It is contrary to our multiracial, multicultural, and multi-faith character and the tolerance for diversity that defines us as Canadians.
I know that members on all sides of the House are concerned about bullying in general and cyberbullying in particular. The government has brought in new legislative measures to address some aspects of this brutal phenomenon, and there are many social actions that seek to shield the vulnerable, like the pink shirt initiative. We are living in an era where knowledge is increasing at an astounding pace. There are many technical advances, and it is hard to keep up with what we refer to in general as science. It has been parsed into more and more diverse pursuits of knowledge.
I know that time in the House is precious and there are some constraints on time, but I have been in the House for 15 years and am known to most in the House. With the support of my colleagues, I hope you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, the time to express my concerns to my colleagues here in the House, with the co-operation of my colleagues of course.
The question I want to ask is this. Is prevailing science always right, therefore? I want to give an example from my own life experience and that of a brilliant Canadian scientist about how wrong and how long science can be wrong. Dr. Robert Salter, one of Canada's most distinguished medical men of science, is one of my personal heroes. He pioneered innovative surgical procedures and left a legacy that has impacted millions around the world in the management of joint injuries. A tribute to this great man of science on the Hospital for Sick Children—SickKids—website said the following:
For 22 centuries, the traditionally accepted and enforced treatment for diseased and injured joints was immobilization.
Robert Salter determined this strategy was doing immense harm to cartilage and joints. His pioneering work on continuous passive motion is now used in more than 15,000 hospitals in 50 countries. His textbook, Textbook of Disorders and Injuries of the Musculoskeletal System has been translated into six languages.
Dr. Salter impacted my own life and practice in a remarkable way. It was 1986. He gave a keynote address to 500 doctors of chiropractic gathered in Toronto at our annual convention. He summed up his work this way: There are three phases we go through when we introduce a model of care that does not fit the current medical thinking. The first is universal rejection: Who do we think we are? The second is equivocation: Well, maybe. The third is universal acceptance: Of course, it is obvious.
He went on to say, “My work is now in the third phase. I'll leave it to you”—
View James Lunney Profile
Ind. (BC)
View James Lunney Profile
2015-04-01 15:39 [p.12663]
Mr. Speaker, the experience that I went through recently with thousands of hateful communications is still going on, frankly, because of a few words that I spoke about science, managing assumptions, and the foundations of science in general.
There are members in the House who engaged me on the controversy, as it were, and I would like to be able to answer their questions. I have no intention of attacking anyone rhetorically in the House. My personal beliefs and those of many of my constituents and millions of Canadians have come under attack, and I would like the opportunity to express those views before my colleagues here. I hope that my colleagues would support me in that opportunity to clarify what I believe on behalf of myself, many of my constituents, and people across Canada.
If I may proceed, Dr. Robert Salter began his career as a medical missionary with the Grenfell Mission in St. Anthony, Newfoundland. I note his—
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-04-01 15:40 [p.12663]
Order, please. It seems that the member may wish to make points that are unrelated, as far as the Chair can tell to this point. I do not see where the link is being made to the member's privileges.
He has alluded to the support of colleagues. Am I to infer from that, that he is seeking and asking consent to have the floor to make a statement?
I see that the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor is rising on a point. Maybe I will hear him first.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think that you, being the master of the House, should extend the privilege to this gentleman. We always preach that, when we want to get up on a point of privilege, we have something to say that is profound.
The gentleman has been here long enough that we should give him that right. I would like to seek consent for him to speak his mind, because I would like to hear it. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. He does have that right, and we should stand up for it.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-04-01 15:41 [p.12664]
Members will know it is important that, when they seek the floor on their questions of privilege, they should make the point of where the perceived breach has been made and make the link clearly and early on.
One can imagine, as the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has indicated, that one of the most precious commodities in the House is time. If we were all seeking to make points outside of normal hours of debate or course of debate, that could get very difficult for the Chair to manage.
The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni has had the floor for, I believe, just shy of 10 minutes, although it might be tough to say with the interventions. However, I think it has been gracious of the House to allow him to do so up to this point, as I have not yet heard anything that would indicate where his privileges have been breached. If he would like to make other points on other aspects of the debate that he is talking about, there may be other opportunities for him to do so.
I will give the hon. member the floor one more time, but I think at this point he really does need to quickly establish his points to his privileges as a member.
View James Lunney Profile
Ind. (BC)
View James Lunney Profile
2015-04-01 15:42 [p.12664]
Mr. Speaker, I think we are all concerned in this place about the phenomenon, a new phenomenon that probably did not exist when our esteemed reference, O'Brien and Bosc, was written. It is this phenomenon of crowd shaming. It is when a member from the House here with 100,000 followers makes a comment and thousands of followers pound on somebody and insult the beliefs not only of this member but of millions of Canadians, and another member makes a simple comment and that makes thousands of other people begin to pound on religious faith in the country.
Since leaders have been here expressing concerns about freedom of religion, I am asking the House to indulge me and give me the time to make my case on behalf of the community I represent.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2015-04-01 15:43 [p.12664]
The member seems to now be asking for unanimous consent to have the floor to make his statement.
Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is no consent.
If the member is now just looking to make a statement on some aspects of things he believes in, without diminishing the importance it may have to him and other members, I do have to go back to what I said: there are many things that we all feel are very important and about which we have very passionate beliefs; however, if 307 members, minus the Speaker, try to do so under questions of privilege, it would be very difficult for the Chair to manage.
I see the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands rising and then the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington as well.
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Results: 1 - 15 of 58 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data