I want to speak very strongly in support of Ms. McPherson's subamendment. We heard some sort of pre-argumentation around this issue by Mr. Oliphant, so I want to respond to some of that, as well.
The process by which Canada has come to recognize genocides has been through votes of the House of Commons. We place a great deal of significance in the debates and the votes around them. The recognition of genocide entails legal obligations for us as a country under the Genocide Convention.
There are many barriers and challenges that prevent cases of ongoing genocide from being adjudicated by judicial bodies. There are mechanisms by which states can interfere. There are states that may not be party to some of the courts that are referenced. We've seen this tactic in other countries, where the argument is made, “Well, we can't act on genocide unless genocide is recognized by a court.” A court needs to recognize the genocide, but then there isn't a court that has the tools and the capacity to recognize genocide in a particular case, so they just do nothing.
That's not acceptable to me. I don't think that should be acceptable to honourable members. We need to have a process whereby the people's representatives can make that determination so that the determination has meaning and value.
The implication of Mr. Oliphant's arguments is that when the House of Commons recognizes a genocide, it's kind of just a group of people making a statement. He's saying, yes, that's his view, but that's not my view. My view is that when the people's representatives say that a genocide is happening in the world—