Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order. Last Thursday, February 5, in his answer to my question, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development apparently knowingly misled the House and Canadians on what I view to be a very important matter. He quoted an international human rights lawyer from Winnipeg, Mr. David Matas, very much out of context.
In quoting Mr. Matas, the minister confused process with substance. My question focused on the substance and the seriousness of implementing key recommendations from the United Nations periodic peer review, which was concluded last week in Geneva. This review included comments from Canada's close friends and allies.
Criticisms from the peer review included Canada's failure to address violence against aboriginal women, failure to uphold the CEDAW obligations and the fact that Canada had no strategy to eliminate poverty and homelessness. These criticisms raise serious issues that should be taken seriously.
The minister clearly avoided the question and turned to verbal gymnastics intended to deliberately mislead the House.
In an email Mr. Matas sent to me on Friday, the day following the question, Mr. Matas points out that the minister:
—plays on an ambiguity. He takes something I said, about Canada's presentation, out of context. I was talking about form not substance. The drift of his answer suggests I was talking about substance and not form.
In his comments, Mr. Matas continues in saying:
The best one can said of [the minister] is that he uttered a non-sequitur, reacting to a question about how bad Canada is in substance by answering that Canada is in good form. It is illogical to respond to a charge of weakness in the Canadian human rights record by saying that Canada has presented a good report on those weaknesses....
It looks to me that he has fallen into a verbal game playing, undercutting at home what Canada is doing abroad. In Geneva, Canada is taking the UPR seriously, setting an example in the hope that other countries will also take the UPR seriously. This effort is undermined when Canada at home does not also take the UPR seriously but instead plays the kind of verbal games in which [the minister] has indulged.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is evident the minister pointedly did not answer the question, deliberately took an experts word out of context and thereby misled the House and all Canadians.