At first glance, this motion was written for the clear purpose of upsetting the opposition parties. It also includes a section regarding the current Minister of Foreign Affairs that is inappropriate and unconscionable from a parliamentary ethics perspective. This has become somewhat frustrating coming from this government.
The sections that are not designed to upset us do nothing but duplicate the work that is already being done by consular offices.
In many areas of the world, religious persecution is commonplace. That is very unfortunate. Foreign consulates have often shared what is happening through the Department of Foreign Affairs.
However, the Conservatives promised to create such an office in the 2011 election campaign. This motion promotes the creation of that office.
The three priorities of this new office will be to protect and advocate on behalf of religious minorities under threat, to oppose religious hatred and intolerance, and to promote Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad.
What about promoting these values in Canada, these values of pluralism, multi-ethnicity and the basis of our inclusive society? Why not address what is going on here first? Why not build up our credibility and then promote it abroad?
The estimated cost of creating this office is $5 million a year. Work to create this office would already be under way, but it seems that there has been some difficulty finding an ambassador, which is causing a delay.
And although we know that the office will have a vague mandate of fighting religious persecution in the world, we are not really sure how the office will be run or what its promotion duties will entail.
This certainly has a whiff of the former government's firearms registry about it, with its mismanagement and skyrocketing costs.
Let us look a little closer at the content of this motion. The sponsor of this motion, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, wants the House to agree:
That…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…
Of course, all this is in keeping with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which contains the basic principles and elements for fair respect of individual rights, which should also be promoted here.
We live in a society of law where reasonable and justifiable limits can be demonstrated in a free and democratic society. Do we currently have in Canada this context that allows a free and democratic society to flourish and grow?
One part of the motion seeks to support article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since when have we given up these principles?
Article 18 says that “[Everyone] has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion...”. I would say this is a carbon copy.
The motion also says that the official statements of the Minister of Foreign Affairs denouncing violations of religious freedom are to be promoted. Is it not already his role as a representative of a free and democratic country to denounce these things? His duties abroad include denouncing such things. Do we need an office to promote that?
The motion also talks about supporting opposition to laws that use “defamation of religion” and “blasphemy”, both within states and internationally, and encouraging Canadian missions to report incidents of violence.
Quite frankly, our consulates and the Minister of Foreign Affairs should already be condemning these acts. What we want is for this government to be responsible and credible when it speaks out against events abroad.
I have already said that this is a very noble motion and we will support it. However, as you know, I have been criticizing for some time this government to which I belong indirectly because I want it to be credible. I am a member of the official opposition. I have the right to criticize my government, but I also have the right to participate in its activities, for example, by proposing amendments to bills in committee so that we can discuss them together. We must be able to talk about the issues. It is part and parcel of the freedom of expression, the freedom of association and the freedom of thought. In a democracy it is essential that these freedoms be recognized and promoted.
In closing, I will mention one last small thing. We are a little concerned that freedom of religion, that we will be promoting abroad, will conflict with other human rights, such as the rights of women, gays and lesbians, religious minorities, and also of first nations and aboriginal peoples. There are many people who belong to these groups in other countries, and we must protect their rights and freedoms and respect their traditions.
As I was saying earlier, we are still not quite sure how this famous office will work or what it will do. It—