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.