Debates of March 5th, 2013

Opposition Motion--Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of today's motion that immediate steps be taken toward abolishing the Senate, tabled by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

One of the debates in this country involving the Senate that I followed as a young journalist covering former Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Clyde Wells in the 1990s was the debate over whether the upper chamber should be reformed into a triple-E model, as in elected, equal and effective, a triple-E Senate.

Today, there is no debate that the upper chamber has become a triple-U Senate, as in unaccountable, unelected and unapologetic.

We should abolish it. There is no alternative. The Senate is too far gone to save. It has become a gated country club, a political pasture and a golden handshake for friends of the Conservative and Liberal parties for fundraisers, for partisans and for failed politicians. The senators do the bidding of the parties they represent. They are unelected. They are unaccountable to the people. They are unapologetic for the embarrassment they have become.

Yes, the Senate is an embarrassment, an embarrassment to Canadians from one end of this country to the other. It is an embarrassment to real Canadian politicians like the elected members of Parliament in the House today.

I have no excuses for the Mike Duffys of this country who take months to figure out exactly where they live. What a joke and an embarrassment.

To quote Michael Bliss, a professor and historian at the University of Toronto:

This is a classic case of Canadians discovering that senators have no clothes.... They've turned themselves into our daily comic relief segment of politics.

I was a journalist in my previous life. I have no defence for Mike Duffy or Pamela Wallin. Wallin is supposed to represent Saskatchewan, but her primary residence is in Toronto and she holds an Ontario health insurance card. I personally find the Duffy and Wallin cases particularly appalling. Journalists should know better, when we spend our working lives holding politicians to account. It is bred into us. We instinctively know where the line is that must not be crossed, and it has most definitely been crossed.

Then there is Senator Patrick Brazeau. If it was not bad enough that he is facing allegations of abuse of his housing allowance, there have also been sexual assault complaints lodged against him.

The embarrassment has become constant. The embarrassment is daily.

The scandal over senatorial housing allowances has led the Senate to seek legal advice that says that as long as senators sign a declaration of qualification form that says they reside where they reside, then it is okay. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay stood in the House yesterday and equated that declaration to a pinkie swear.

In my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there is Senator Fabian Manning. He was a member of Parliament. He lost his seat. He was appointed to the Senate. Then he was cherry-picked for the 2011 federal election to run again for the Conservatives in the federal riding of Avalon. Manning lost again. Then he was appointed to the Senate again. We have a senator who was rejected by the people, not once but twice, speaking on behalf of the Conservative government all over my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl. Is Senator Manning supposed to be Newfoundland and Labrador's voice? He is not. We are supposed to represent Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa. We are not supposed to be representatives of Ottawa in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not the way it is supposed to work.

Senators are held to one level of account; Canadians are held to another level of account. For example, EI claimants have investigators knocking down their doors, while senators hide behind their doors; that is, if their doors can be found.

The budget of the Canadian Senate is $92.5 million a year. Most Canadians cannot even fathom that much money. Let me bring this home. Senator Wallin's $350,000 in travel expenses would cover old age security for 57 seniors a year. Mike Duffy is eligible to collect another $1.3 million in salary before his mandatory retirement at the age of 75. Patrick Brazeau will bring in another $7 million in salary before he turns 75.

These are basically jobs for life. Well, they are not really jobs for life, but salaries for life. The average number of work days in 2011 and 2012 for a Canadian senator was 56 days, with an annual salary, as has been said before, of $132,000 a year plus living expenses, for a job, I am sorry, for a salary, that they will continue to receive until they are 75.

They do not have to run for election. They are not accountable to anyone. They do not have to apologize to anyone when they fleece the taxpayer. The Senate absolutely should be abolished.

Senators vote according to the interests of the parties they represent, as I mentioned earlier, rather than the regions they are supposed to represent. However, the Senate was created as a chamber of sober second thought. It was created to offset the representation by population in the House of Commons. Again, it was envisioned that senators would vote according to the region they represented, to offset representation by population.

Small provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, have seven seats in the House of Commons. Small provinces like Prince Edward Island have five seats in the House of Commons. Altogether, the Atlantic provinces have 32 seats. Then, we have provinces like Quebec that has 75 seats, and Ontario with 106 seats. The bigger provinces with the larger populations obviously have more seats in the House of Commons, and those totals are destined to increase. The number of seats in the House of Commons will rise by 30 in the 2015 general election. Quebec, Ontario, B.C. and Alberta will all see their number of seats increase. Meanwhile, provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador and the three maritime provinces will not see any increase. Our representation will be watered down.

The point that I am getting to is that while I agree with the abolition of the Senate 100%, there is a bigger debate taking shape in this country over the need for democratic reform. Let me cut to the chase.

How does a smaller province like Newfoundland and Labrador, with a population of 514,000 people, half the population of Ottawa, ensure we have an equal seat at the confederation table with larger provinces like Ontario and Quebec that have more representation because they have larger populations? How do we ensure that the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador are heard and acted upon?

This week, in my province, we have news that three more groundfish plants will be shut down, throwing 300 rural Newfoundlanders out of work. It has been more than 20 years after the northern cod moratorium, and there is still no recovery plan in place. Ottawa's handling of the fisheries has been a disgrace and an affront to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Again, how do we ensure that smaller provinces have an equal seat at the confederation table? From Newfoundland and Labrador's perspective, and from the perspective of smaller provinces across the country, that is the debate that must happen. That is a debate that is destined to happen.

The Senate absolutely must be abolished, but the question must also be asked on how we offset representation by population so that smaller provinces have an equal footing, for the good of our culture, our identity, and for the good of future generations, and so that small provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador are not made to feel like lesser provinces?

Yes, abolish the Senate and the abomination it has become. However, we must then get to the real work of democratic reform.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened, somewhat, to the member's speech, and the mistakes in it. I would like to thank him now for the extra seat in Prince Edward Island. Hopefully it will be a Conservative seat. He should perhaps check on who is doing the research.

I have listened to many NDP speakers talk about that nasty unelected Senate, how people run for office and happen to lose and then get appointed to the Senate. That is the sin of all sins; that is the evil of all evils. However, that is the party that wants proportional representation in this place. If an individual runs for Parliament and gets defeated but the party has 30% of the vote, if they get five more members, they are appointed to the House of Commons instead of elected. What a bunch of hypocrites. Good Lord.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I would also ask the hon. member to please listen to my answer. He said at the beginning of his question that the Conservatives listened “somewhat”. The problem with the Conservatives is the fact that they listen somewhat. They do not listen like they should to everything that is being said.

I did not hear a question from the hon. member, so I have nothing to respond to. As the member is only listening somewhat, I will repeat again: first things first, abolish the Senate, and then democratic reform.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a very strong statement when he says abolish the Senate and then look at democratic reform.

The member who spoke before him stated that his party was going to consult with the provinces before it would do anything. It seems to me that NDP members have adopted the position to abolish the Senate. Why would they declare publicly that they would abolish the Senate and then listen to what the premiers have to say? It seems to me that there is a gap in reality here. You cannot abolish the Senate and then have consultations with the provinces. You need to consult with the provinces. You need to get all of the provinces onside, which you are not going to do. Technically, that party would have to get all of the provinces onside in order to abolish the Senate.

On the other hand, the member wants to ensure that the regions have representation in Ottawa. Many regions of the country, including Manitoba, Atlantic Canada and the prairies, look at the Senate as a reformed body that could guarantee regional representation, if we arrive at the day when we could have constitutional debates inside our country. Today is not the day. Today is about the economy—

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to take the hon. member seriously when he stands and asks a question about the Senate. Every time he asks a question about the Senate, I see it as the hon. member defending the old boys' club of the Senate, the Liberal appointees. I do not only hear the hon. member speaking; I hear him speaking on behalf of his old boys' network. It is the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party protecting their friends. That is what I hear. I find it hard to take any question that he asks seriously.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Members should recall that they must direct their comments, questions, speeches to the chair and not to other hon. members. It keeps the debate civil.

We are going to resuming debate. The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has 20 minutes available to him, but I will need to interrupt him at 15 minutes past the hour, which is the end of the time allocated for business of supply today.

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thanks for the fair warning about the amount of time. I am sure I will be warned before it is over; I love the signals that are given by the chair.

Today I am going to discuss a number of things on the motion that has been brought forward by the party opposite. The first thing I want to cover is something I am hearing a lot of in the House today, whether this is truly the best use of our time.

I have to say that when visiting the coffee shops back in St. Thomas or Aylmer, it is not. We should be here talking about jobs and the economy. I certainly have that conversation a lot. When we get out of this place to spend time back home, the real answer is that it is about jobs and the economy. If the discussion of the Senate ever came up, it would probably be because I brought it up. I chair our procedure and House affairs committee, and that is where we talk about this. I might be asked what I have been doing, and if we talked about Senate reform that would probably be the only reason it would come up on the street.

The real question is about jobs and the economy. This government and this Prime Minister has proven that we can multi-task; we can do a number of things at once. Here we are, sharing in that multi-tasking, covering off a topic that does not seem to be of much use to us today.

I will talk a little about the priorities of this place and how we got to where we are today on this topic. When we get to Senate reform, I will talk a little about Senate reform and what has been put forward by this Prime Minister and this party in our time here, and the help or hurt, whichever way members would like to take it, of the party opposite on helping move that through expeditiously to create the reform they all look for. I will point out the good points and the bad. Certainly another piece we will talk about will be the Senate reform that we are already working on.

I will spend some time talking about our referral to the Supreme Court for an opinion on some of the topics we are talking about, and how instead of the filibustering, talking about topics over and over, and showboating, that we will probably get better answers waiting for the opinion of the Supreme Court and then taking action based on what it has to say.

Unlike some of the speakers before me, who have already come to the conclusion that they need to abolish the Senate, before they have even done the consultation that is talked about in the motion, I will wait and listen to the Supreme Court's ruling first. From that, I will formulate a plan going forward, and I will certainly follow up on Bill C-7, Senate Reform Act, that is currently before the House, which has been referenced. We will do that. We will move forward in that fashion. I think that would be appropriate.

Let us talk about those things. Let us talk about jobs and the economy, and talk about how this fits in. I cannot get up to speak in the House without sharing how the motion before us today on Senate reform is not the topic that is enthusiastically embraced back home. Most often, the topic is on jobs and the economy, and I wish that had been the opposition's choice to talk about today. We could be vigorously debating our opinions on something about jobs, the economy and growth.

However, here we are again. I do not do this often, but I am going to quote one of my friends from across the way. I will talk about one of my friends, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. She is special. She does a great job on committee, and we have had discussions on some of these issues.

This morning I was listening, as closely as I possibly could to the topic, when I would rather be talking about jobs and the economy. I listened to the member's speech. In answers to questions, she did respond, which I thought was very appropriate, twice, and it was great.

First, I believe she said thank you for referring it to the Supreme Court. She is right. It was an appropriate thing for us to do. Therefore, on behalf of all Canadians and myself, she is welcome.

The other thing I believe she was asked about were some of the good things that happened in the Senate. The Senate has actually done some remarkable studies and research on topics. She said that they agreed that this had happened. It did work, that it was really what was going on over there.

We should not judge all for the lack of some and we should not judge an institution based on the hypocrisy of wanting today's talking points. It is only safe to say, that this is where we should go.

I find it somewhat strange that we are here today discussing the motion. When asked, the Leader of the Opposition could not clearly deny that he would not appoint senators. There is a bit of hypocrisy there also. Maybe we should have talked about that too.

I want to talk about another one of my other favourite members. The member for Hamilton Centre was up earlier today. I could listen to him for hours. I believe it is part of why I have a loss of hearing, because whether he is right or wrong, he is loud. Whether he is right or wrong, he will ensure that we hear what he has to say. I love him for that and, honestly, for his participation at committee also. He has been a good friend.

I would like to let him know that today I also looked through speeches and the number of times that Senate reform had come to the House and the number of times the members opposite had spoken. I will give a bit of a history lesson on some of that. There were some 40 speeches from the NDP alone on this. There were 88 opposition speakers. It has come forward for debate in the House on 17 days. There have been nine different committee meetings.

We are sometimes asked, where it is. We rotate legislation around from certain days, but I will give some thoughts on some of this.

BillC-7 was brought forward in June of 2011. It came to the House on September 30, 2011, with a couple of opposition party members speaking to it. On October 3, three more got up and spoke to it, I am sure in conjunction with a number of government members and members of the third party. On November 14, more members got up and spoke to it. On November 22, 15 different opposition members spoke on that day alone to Bill C-7, the Senate reform package.

I have been spending today reading through some of those speeches and watching as many speeches as I can in the House also. One would think that if we had to tell anyone the same thing over and over again, this many times, it has been said and done. The real answer is, apparently it is not. We are still putting more speakers up.

On December 7, 2011, two more speakers from the opposite side were up. On December 8, it was another bountiful day on Senate reform. Eleven more members from the opposition got up that day and spoke to Bill C-7.

We have now moved into 2012 on the bill. On February 27, 2012, the same thing occurred. Another seven members from the official opposition were up speaking that day.

The NDP members have found a niche, something they were looking for, a topic that they like, and that is what this is about.

I would like to paraphrase a speech I read today from the member for Winnipeg North, from November 2011, saying perhaps this was what this was about.

The NDP members have found a topic that they think will stir public interest and will move their interests forward, rather than they found a real interest in what would help in the democratic reform of our country.

We need to look more into what it will take to get it done and that leads me to the other topic of the referral to the Supreme Court and how with that in-hand, significant progress may actually work forward, when members quit standing and saying that the court will not accept that or coming up with other reasons as to why we have this legislation going forward.

Let us talk about what was referred to the Supreme Court.

First, the first piece of opinion we have asked the Supreme Court for is something pretty simple and that is term limits. What term would be appropriate for senators to have if indeed senators had term limits? Can we limit the terms of senators? I know that in the past, the retirement date was changed, so I think terms for senators is an opinion that the Supreme Court will come back to us with. We are suggesting nine years in the one piece of legislation, but we have asked the Supreme Court give us an opinion on a number of different terms.

I believe the last study I read at committee the average length of time served by a senator in our House was nine-point-something years and that was the average length of time a senator did serve in the Senate. Therefore, asking about term limits of nine years is probably very appropriate.

The next thing is the democratic selection of Senate nominees. We have asked an opinion of the Supreme Court about the democratic selection of nominees. Can we ask provinces to determine within their provinces who they would like their senators to be? If that happens, then they would be appointed by the Prime Minister to the Senate. Alberta has already chosen to do this. We have senators now who have been elected by the people of Alberta, representing provincially the province of Alberta in the Senate who have been appointed by our Prime Minister. We are asking for the Supreme Court's opinion on that topic to see whether that is a process we could continue to follow. Would that handle the democratic lack we have of unelected senators by having provinces elect them and then move them forward?

There are a couple of other pieces of opinion we have asked the Supreme Court for and one has to do with net worth for senators and the other has to do with what we are talking about today, the abolition of the Senate. We are asking the opinion of the Supreme Court on this very topic. I mentioned the hypocrisy piece that the member for Winnipeg North mentioned in his speech in November 2011, about bringing this topic forward for the sake of political reasons rather than for real democratic reform. We have hit on it exactly. The party opposite knows the Supreme Court has been asked for its opinion on this topic and yet what is its motion today? Let us spend the whole day talking about this instead of—

[An hon. member]

Jobs and the economy.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

The member is right. Instead of talking about jobs and the economy, we are talking about a topic that the NDP believes will add some political oomph.

I talked about the number of speakers we had in the House and how many members from the NDP rose to speak and said the same thing over and over again. It was enlightening reading some of these speeches over again after having listened to them in the first place. However, we have also had a number of committee meetings on this same topic. Therefore, it not only happened here, it happened at committees, whether it was Bill C-7 or previous democratic reform pieces on the Senate. Since 2006, I am told there have been 28 committee meetings that have taken place on Senate reform.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that had to deal with this, it was a topic of discussion and a bit of filibustering, a delaying tactic.

I was a stay-at-home defenceman. People may not be able to tell by my appearance, but in hockey I seldom got past centre ice. My coach thought I was a far better defenceman than I was a goal scorer. Therefore, I know when players are delaying the game and I know what it looks like when players are not rushing the puck. I would suggest the party opposite has gone even further on not rushing the puck.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, March 6 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Religious freedom

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) continue to recognize as part of Canadian foreign policy that (i) everyone has the right to freedom of religion and conscience, including the freedom to change religion or belief, and the freedom to manifest religion or belief in teaching, worship, practice and observance, (ii) all acts of violence against religious groups should be condemned, (iii) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights be supported, (iv) the special value of official statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs denouncing violations of religious freedom around the world be promoted, (v) Canada's commitment to the creation of an Office of Religious Freedom should be used to help protect religious minorities and promote the pluralism that is essential to the development of free and democratic societies; and (b) support (i) the opposition to laws that use "defamation of religion" and "blasphemy" both within states and internationally to persecute members of religious minorities, (ii) reporting by Canadian missions abroad in responding to incidents of religious violence, (iii) coordinated efforts to protect and promote religious freedom, (iv) the maintaining of a regular dialogue with relevant governments to ensure that the issue of religious persecution is a priority, (v) the encouragement of Canadian embassies to seek contact with religious communities and human rights organizations on gathering information related to human rights abuses, (vi) the training and support of foreign affairs officials for the advocacy of global religious freedom.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me today to rise and begin the first hour of debate on my private member's motion, Motion No. M-382, which speaks to Canada's role to protect and promote the freedom of religion and conscience.

In my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, my constituents are appalled when they too often hear and see the persecution of people, the beating, the raping and the killing of individuals. Why? It is only because of their religion, their belief or their desire to change it.

This is in fact an issue of human dignity.

Allow me to read into the record, again, my Motion No. M-382:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) continue to recognize as part of Canadian foreign policy that (i) everyone has the right to freedom of religion and conscience, including the freedom to change religion or belief, and the freedom to manifest religion or belief in teaching, worship, practice and observance, (ii) all acts of violence against religious groups should be condemned, (iii) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights be supported, (iv) the special value of official statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs denouncing violations of religious freedom around the world be promoted, (v) Canada's commitment to the creation of an Office of Religious Freedom should be used to help protect religious minorities and promote the pluralism that is essential to the development of free and democratic societies; and (b) support (i) the opposition to laws that use "defamation of religion" and "blasphemy" both within states and internationally to persecute members of religious minorities, (ii) reporting by Canadian missions abroad in responding to incidents of religious violence, (iii) coordinated efforts to protect and promote religious freedom, (iv) the maintaining of a regular dialogue with relevant governments to ensure that the issue of religious persecution is a priority, (v) the encouragement of Canadian embassies to seek contact with religious communities and human rights organizations on gathering information related to human rights abuses, (vi) the training and support of foreign affairs officials for the advocacy of global religious freedom.

I want to take this opportunity now to thank my friend and colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board and the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Saskatchewan, for seconding the motion.

Indeed, we are here today, in part, because of his commitment to this important and timely issue. I am pleased to have worked closely with him in bringing the motion forward.

As I begin, please allow me to address the first part of my motion, dealing with the importance of promoting religious freedom in our foreign policy and our government's intention to continue to speak out against discrimination and all acts of violence against religious groups.

Unfortunately, this human right is facing increasing restrictions worldwide. Our government is a strong and committed supporter of the individual rights of freedom of religion or belief, and we will continue to promote the protection of religious minorities around the world and support pluralism as a key objective of our foreign policy.

Clearly, the need is urgent and, as the Prime Minister recently stated, as citizens of a free country we have a solemn duty to speak out on behalf of those who are under constant threat just because of their religious beliefs.

The Prime Minister also correctly stated that democracy will not, and cannot, find fertile ground in any society where notions of the freedom of personal conscience and faith are not permitted.

In Canada we have promoted and enacted human rights for a very long time. The right to religion in Canada is foundational, just as democracy is a fundamental right in Canada.

Recently, I had the honour of joining the Prime Minister as he announced the official opening of our government's Office of Religious Freedom. This office will be an important vehicle through which Canada will advance fundamental Canadian values including freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law worldwide.

It will focus on protecting and advocating on behalf of religious minorities under threat, opposing religious hatred and intolerance and promoting Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad. This includes when governments use laws of blasphemy, apostasy and defamation of religion to restrict religious freedom and expression.

Through this dedicated office, under the leadership of Dr. Andrew Bennett, Canada's first ambassador of religious freedom, we will coordinate diplomatic efforts to respond to areas of religious discrimination and persecution and maintain frank dialogue with other governments to ensure that religious freedom is a priority.

Last week, I met with Ambassador Bennett. I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him every success in a position that will surely come with its challenges.

When considering this issue and this motion, it is useful to reflect on the original meaning of the word “religion”. In Latin, the word “religion” means “respect for what is sacred”. This is key to our approach, respect for religious beliefs, for the ability to worship in a safe and secure environment and for expression of one's faith, free from persecution.

We believe strongly that everyone should have this right. As my motion, M-382, makes clear, our government will continue to speak out against and condemn all acts of violence against religious groups.

Freedom of religion also means the freedom to change religion or belief, and the freedom to follow one's religion or belief in teaching, worship, practice and observance, free from discrimination and fear of violence and free from persecution.

We know there are strong linkages between religious freedom, pluralism, peace and security, which are pillars of strong democratic and prosperous development. As the Prime Minister has said:

Pluralism is the principle that binds our diverse peoples together.

It is essential to our civil society and economic strength....

Most of the word's nations are, like Canada, composed of diverse ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious populations....

Pluralism allows individuals to retain their cultural, linguistic and religious heritage within a framework of shared citizenship.

Canadians, like those in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, want us to take a strong and principled stand against religious persecution, particularly relevant to these recent years, a time when restrictions on religious freedom are on the rise worldwide.

A Pew forum study has found that one-third of the countries in the world have high or very high restrictions on freedom of religion. As some of the restrictive countries are very populous, this means that nearly 70% of the world's population live in countries with high restrictions. The world needs leadership, and we are willing to stand with our partners to promote fundamental human rights.

Simply put, societies that protect religious freedom are most likely to protect other fundamental freedoms. They are typically more stable and more prosperous. When we have religious freedom, other freedoms follow. That is why religious freedom is prominently found in documents such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Canada will continue to be a strong and committed supporter of the individual's right of freedom of religion and conscience. Pursued in conjunction with other civil and political rights, the right of the individual to freedom of religion is enshrined in articles 2 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as articles 18, 24 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In addition, our own Canadian Constitution enshrines “freedom of conscience and religion” as a fundamental freedom.

Canada has an important role to play globally, a role from which we will not shy away. Canada is a country of tolerance, acceptance, peace and security, and we are also a pluralistic society. Our diversity gives us a unique perspective on the world. Canada has long been building the conditions in which people live with the dignity others wish for—built around our fundamental values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. For example, these fundamental values were ripped away from someone of whom we all know. Shahbaz Bhatti, an upright appointed minister for minorities in Pakistan, was gunned down and assassinated last year, because of his beliefs and because he was working and advocating for the dignity of all.

Canada, by its very nature and our history, is well positioned to promote freedom of religion and belief. At the time of Confederation, the neutrality of the Canadian state toward citizens' choice of faith and belief was affirmed in the British North America Act in 1867. In the early period of the 20th century, tolerance for religious minorities was entrenched by way of several court decisions, for example, protecting the rights of Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Later in the second half of the century, respect for social diversity was reasserted in an emergent culture of human rights, as reflected in the Canadian Bill of Rights adopted by the Diefenbaker government in 1960 and then again in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982. On the day Prime Minister John Diefenbaker introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights in Parliament, he spoke these words:

I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.

Today, that great challenge, that great responsibility, is shared by me, my colleagues and, indeed I believe, all who sit in this chamber. It is important that we take this seriously.

To conclude, I am pleased to present this motion for debate, and I hope it will receive support from all parties and all members. I believe it would be entirely compatible with our values and our beliefs as Canadians and that it would clearly demonstrate Canada's duty to promote religious freedom on behalf of the high number of individuals and groups around the world facing discrimination, persecution and oppression.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, for his stirring speech. I know this is an issue that is very close to his heart, and he is to be commended for bringing this important motion forward before this House. This is a core Canadian value, and he has said it well. His speech was well thought out, and he spoke from the heart.

Can the member give us a flavour of what he thinks the current state of religious freedoms is around the world? Does he see things improving on an annual basis? Does he see things deteriorating? Could he give us a little example of what he has seen happen over the last few years and tell us why he thinks Canada needs to stand up for this most fundamental human right?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his kind comments and also for the amount of work I know he has done and has been a part getting the Office of Religious Freedom up and running.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, when we read the news of the atrocities around the world, it was easy when they were a few thousand miles away to put them behind us. By the time we received the news, it was old news. However, when these atrocities happen now, they are instant, they are on our doorstep and on the digital stuff that surrounds us every day.

As a father and grandfather, I am concerned when I hear of these things happening now. I would note what has happened in Bangladesh, for example. The continual extreme of organizations that do not have a conscience for human life seems to be on the rise.

I am so proud to be Canadian, as all of us are. I believe Canada is a country that, because it is held in esteem around the world, has an opportunity to be a leader and to build on our partnerships with other countries to have some influence in persuading and bringing down some of those problems.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the words of the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex today. I have seen him enough times in the House. I am heartened to hear the amount of times he referred to the United Nations in his remarks and its various protocols. There is a back and forth that occurs in this place and at times on this side we have questioned the commitment of the Conservative government to the United Nations.

I want to echo the member's thoughts on Mr. Bhatti. I am vice-chair of the subcommittee on human rights and we had Mr. Bhatti before us. He quite clearly told us that he was at risk for his beliefs and he ultimately died as a result of them.

Again, this is more of a commentary on the evolution of the relationship, or what could be perceived as a deterioration of the relationship, between the Conservative government and the United Nations. Hopefully this is a sign that perhaps we may have misjudged.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have known the member for a while and I know his comments to be sincere.

As a nation, when we look at our approach, we look at declarations of not only the United Nations but also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The United States of America, Germany and the United Kingdom are all signatories. This is not just about Canada; it is about bringing along the partners that are there.

As I mentioned in my speech, for a democracy that allows the freedom of speech and freedom of religion and expression to happen, those countries are strong and democratic. They are the ones that will prosper in the end. Therefore, we come alongside and build partnerships with these countries.

I hope the member will support this motion.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start off my remarks by reading into the record some material supporting the perspective of this particular individual.

According to the December 2009 report from the Pew Research Center's forum on religion and public life dealing with global restrictions on religions, threats to religious freedom around the world are increasing.

The report found that nearly two-thirds of the world's population, or 59%, live under high government restrictions on religion. Almost half, or 48%, live in areas where high religiously motivated social hostilities exist.

Sixty-four nations, or about a third of the world's countries, have high or very high restrictions on religion, but because some of those most restrictive countries are very populous, nearly 70% of the world's 6.8 billion people live in countries with high restrictions on religion, the brunt of which often falls on religious minorities.

A recent 2012 report from Pew, "Rising Restrictions on Religion", found that between 2006 and 2010, Christians were harassed in more countries—139—than any other faith group. As well, Muslims were harassed in 121 countries and were second. The Christians and Muslims together comprise half the world's population.

What might be surprising to some people is that the Jewish community actually came in third. We hear a lot about anti-Semitism, and in reality they are still seriously harassed in 85 countries, even though they make up only about 1% of the world's population. We can understand the devastating effect of that harassment.

The Pew studies reinforce the recent observations by Globe and Mail columnist Doug Saunders, who notes that “the most important religious freedom is freedom from religion”. That happens to be his perspective. He says that the number one reason people are persecuted for their faith is being a member of a religious minority within a nation or a region in which another religion or sect dominates.

I want to go back to the bill for a minute. It was introduced in May of last year. I want to read parts of it, and then I will comment as I go.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) continue to recognize as part of Canadian foreign policy that (i) everyone has the right to freedom of religion and conscience, including the freedom to change religion or belief, and the freedom to manifest religion or belief in teaching, worship, practice and observance

I would observe that most Canadians believe that is how the government and this Parliament are functioning. I do not mean to put this down, but people have asked me why we need it. Obviously the mover of the motion believes in the motion, and I am not suggesting he should not; it is just that often Canadians believe things are a certain way, and maybe they are less so than what they believe.

The motion continues:

(ii) all acts of violence against religious groups should be condemned

Again, a fundamental view of Canadians would be precisely that. We are very much in line with this bill.

The motion goes on:

(iii) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights be supported

In my notes I put that it is not often we hear the government side quoting. I will say quite frankly that I am pleased to see it.

The motion goes on to state:

(iv) the special value of official statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs denouncing violations of religious freedom around the world be promoted

I was a little surprised. I think it is anticipated and expected of anybody in the Government of Canada to stand up in that fashion.

The motion continues:

(v) Canada's commitment to the creation of an Office of Religious Freedom should be used to help protect religious minorities and promote the pluralism that is essential to the development of free and democratic societies

The previous speaker spoke to that very point, and I was pleased to see that. We accept that all religious paths are equally valid, and promoting coexistence is something that Canada is well known for.

The motion goes on in (b) to state:

(i)The opposition to laws that use “defamation of religion” and “blasphemy” both within states and internationally to persecute members of religious minorities

No matter what the tool used, we agree that persecution, particularly of minorities, on the grounds of religion is repugnant and needs to be opposed in all forms.

(b)(ii) reporting by Canadian missions abroad in responding to incidents of religious violence

(iii) coordinated efforts to protect and promote religious freedom

We hear within those two points the obligation to protect. Those who know the United Nations will know that Canada promoted that particular group, but that has been seen within the United Nations as sometimes preventing support for some countries and people because of the fear that it would drag the United Nations into wars. Perhaps this is a question I should have asked the member following his remarks. I wonder if he sees it that way, or is he suggesting a lesser form of engagement, which I believe is the intent of the motion?

(iv) the maintaining of a regular dialogue with relevant governments to ensure that the issue of religious persecution is a priority.

In this area, I wonder just when was the last time the current government had discussions with China regarding religious rights in that country. It is an obvious question.

We see here:

(v) the encouragement of Canadian embassies to seek contact with religious communities and human rights organizations on gathering information related to human rights abuses.

Fewer than 10 days ago, I was in Burma. We met with expatriated Canadians who talked at length about their views of what had happened in that country. They lamented the loss of rights and democracy. They believe that it was an essential part of the development of Burma. I thought I would raise it here as a commentary, because they saw that as a group that was promoting precisely what the motion is talking about.

(vi) the training and support of foreign affairs officials for the advocacy of global religious freedom.

This particular part of the motion is likely the most concerning for some Canadians who believe in the separation of church and state. We oftentimes hear discussions about that, and I am sure that a variety of views could be brought forward here. Speaking for the group of Canadians I come in most contact with, they actually believe that we have the separation of church and state in Canada at this point in time.

We all know that people oftentimes do not look deeply into a bill that might come before the House. Oftentimes, as well, they will have the kinds of questions about those bills, because of that lack of understanding, that makes it sound as if they are raising a concern that perhaps is not even necessary.

I want to go back a moment to my role as vice-chair of the subcommittee on human rights. Over and over, we hear testimony to the effect that in many parts of the world, religious persecution is commonplace. Just today, a woman in Egypt spoke to us by teleconference. She talked about the situation for religious minorities, such as Coptic Christians, Shia Muslims and others within that country, because of the change that has taken place. We have heard of Iraqi minorities, such as Christians, Mandaeans and the Baha'i, who have become targets of violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Last year we were told that in Pakistan, the Taliban have targeted Christians for attack through killings, torture and forcible confinement. Again, Mr. Bhatti's name comes to the fore when we have that discussion. Witnesses stated that they believe that at least some of this was a backlash against the U.S. and Pakistani military operations.

If we really honestly step back and look at it, a lot of the things that have occurred in countries are historic by nature. There are groups of people within those countries who have been at odds for an awfully long time. It is easy to point to one particular situation and say that it is the cause. It certainly was a contributing factor, but to say that it was the cause might be over-extending.

Being in Burma, I had the pleasure of meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi, along with others, and she spoke to us about the situation with Rohingya Muslims in that country, the deportations and things that were happening.

I will wrap up by saying that New Democrats support this bill. We question the need for the bill, but we support it.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I want to tell my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex at the outset that I intend to vote in favour of this motion. I listened carefully to the member's comments, as well as the comments from my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. From my perspective, there is considerable merit in the motion advanced by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

As members know, the Liberal Party and my colleagues in caucus have always supported and been very much in favour of the freedom of religion and conscience. However, we have some concerns about the implication that one particular right or freedom, in this case, the freedom of religion and conscience, would be promoted above another basic human right or freedom that our country has always defended and stood up for abroad.

Our perspective tells us that our foreign policy should include the promotion of all freedoms and rights, for example, the rights of women, homosexuals and different groups around the world, who at various times have faced terrible oppression. They also deserve a robust defence in Canada's foreign policy. Our foreign policy and our diplomats should not shy away from speaking out against many of these abuses and practices which appall and shock millions of Canadians. The Liberal Party has always promoted and defended freedom of religion and conscience as a fundamental human right, not only under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also as a matter of international law.

We strongly belive that we must defend and promote all human rights, including rights that go against certain religious beliefs, including equality for women and equality for the LGBT community.

One right or freedom should not be promoted as more important than other rights or freedoms. The government must guarantee that it will not encourage any interpretation that would give precedence to religious rights over other rights and freedoms, as fundamental as the right to religious freedom is, and it must tell us how it will do so.

We have also spoken about some concerns we have with regard to the Office of Religious Freedom. After considerably and consistently diminishing Canada's international presence and engagement, cutting democratic development programs focused on human rights, and ignoring or marginalizing Canada's knowledgeable and experienced diplomatic corps, the Conservatives have established an office with limited scope and resources to do what many of these very diplomats and programs did so effectively in the past.

The promotion of freedom of religion as an objective of our foreign policy obviously has very considerable merit. However, again, it should not and cannot replace a broader engagement of Canada on the international stage in the promotion of other rights and freedoms with the same vigour and enthusiasm that the government wants to promote religious freedoms. Rather than pursuing substantive results in the areas of religious freedoms alongside other human rights, the government's approach often prefers to resort to symbolism or posturing, often focused on a domestic political audience. The government must demonstrate to Canadians that it is focused on a constructive engagement for Canada in foreign policy, not simply easy symbols or gestures, which have considerable merit in and of themselves, but should not replace a more broad and robust engagement for Canada abroad.

We must ensure that the creation of the Office of Religious Freedom does not create a hierarchy among religious rights and other rights to equality, that it is not used for partisan or political purposes and that its conception of religious freedom is truly pluralistic.

We feel it is very important to ensure that the Office of Religious Freedom, which we believe has merit, is never used to exclude certain religions or forms of religious expression.

For example, Canada should be investing a national endowment in a centre for democracy to establish a framework for the protection and promotion of democratic rights as basic human rights as well. Since 2008, the Conservatives have promised to set up a non-partisan office for democratic development but have failed to do so.

We see the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, an independent professional public service and an effective, truly transparent electoral mechanism as essential parts of Canada's foreign policy, as well as the promotion of human rights and religious freedoms.

Members will remember that the Conservatives dismantled, in a rather dramatic and unfair way, an organization known as Rights and Democracy. Until the Conservatives sabotaged it, it had previously played an effective role in promoting Canadian foreign policy in terms of our participation in helping fledgling democracies implant basic institutions of democratic rule and electoral transparency.

The Liberals will always work with the government in supporting and promoting matters as important as the protection of religious freedoms and the promotion of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Clearly, for a long time this has been an essential part of Canada's engagement abroad.

However, we have real concerns that we are increasingly limiting the face of Canada's foreign policy to a more narrow range of issues, instead of accepting that Canadian NGOs and a professional and competent diplomatic corps that has served this country for generations with honour should be allowed to also express, in a very robust way, our support for other freedoms and other human rights as extensively as the government would propose with respect to this Office of Religious Freedom.