Debates of March 21st, 2016

Opposition Motion—Office of Religious Freedom

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

moved

That the House (a) recognize the good work being done by Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom, in particular its work within the Department of Global Affairs to build the Department's capacity to address threats to religious freedom, and to directly promote peace, freedom, tolerance, and communal harmony; and, as a consequence, (b) call on the government to renew the current mandate of the Office, since the continuation of its vital work is needed now more than ever.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 2016, the House will proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of the appropriation bills.

In view of recent procedures, do hon. members agree to have the bills distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on May 16, 1919, Molly Pinto was born in Karachi, Pakistan, then part of greater India. Her family was originally from Goa, a Portuguese colony on the west coast of India, which had and continues to have a large Catholic population. She grew up in a Goan Catholic colony in Karachi. She remembered a very happy childhood, one populated by children and then young adults from all different ethnic and religious communities: Goan, as well as indigenous Pakistani Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, etc. Various languages were spoken: English; Konkani, the Goan language; Urdu; Hindi; etc. She recalls how people from different communities shared meaningful friendships. They would bring sweets to their Muslim neighbours at Christmastime, and their neighbours would bring them sweets for Eid.

Molly Pinto is my wife's grandmother, and the Pakistan that she grew up in looked a lot like how Canada looks today. Those on the left and on the right who are willing to casually label religious intolerance as part of the culture or religion in Pakistan do not know their history. Countries like Pakistan had a rich tradition of multicultural, multilingual, multi-faith co-operation long before Canada even existed, and that tradition continues in the living memory of many who are still with us today. I am sure that some members of the House remember that history from their own experience, and hope and pray for a return to it.

Molly remembers how increasing tensions emerged during partition, when India and Pakistan achieved their independence and separated from each other. Her perception was that when people who had been pushed out of other places in present-day India came to Pakistan, often after seeing or experiencing violence at home, they brought a level of suspicion and tension that felt alien in what had previously been an idyllic setting.

Still, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was very clear about the need to continue Pakistan's pluralistic traditions after independence. Like Molly, Jinnah was born in Karachi. His family were Gujarati Shia Muslims, and as a Shia, Jinnah was in many senses part of a religious minority as well. He also attended Christian schools.

Jinnah had a vision for Pakistan that made the protection of minorities central to its success. Pakistan adopted a flag which clearly demonstrated his vision, a green section to represent the Muslim majority, and a white stripe for the minority communities.

Here is what Muhammad Ali Jinnah said in an address to the constituent assembly of Pakistan in 1947:

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. [...] We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.

On September 9, 1968, Clement Shahbaz Bhatti was born in Lahore, Pakistan. He would go on to become the country's first federal minister for minority affairs. In 1979, when Shahbaz was 11 years old, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. This event would have a consequential impact on world affairs, in Pakistan, and in the life of Shahbaz Bhatti .

Western aid, and aid from other Muslim countries, was funnelled through Pakistan to support the mujahedeen in its jihad against the Soviet Union. The mujahedeen defeated the Soviets, but Pakistan paid a heavy price for its involvement because of the significant injection of extreme and intolerant ideas that came with the mujahedeen and subsequent rise of the Taliban. The rise of extremism in Iran, as well, had a negative effect on Pakistani pluralism.

Importantly, none of these developments in the Muslim world were inevitable. They reflected the push and pull of history, perhaps some policy mistakes, perhaps some policy decisions which were necessary in their time but that had unintended consequences. Either way, the evident decline of pluralism in Pakistan was not inevitable, and it is not irreversible.

Shahbaz Bhatti knew that. As federal minister for minorities in Pakistan, he visited Canada. He came here in February 2011, the month before his assassination. He met with the former prime minister as well as other ministers. He knew then how vulnerable he was. His visit followed on the heels of the assassination of Governor Salmaan Taseer, a Pakistani Muslim who, like Shahbaz, was an outspoken critic of Pakistan's blasphemy laws used to target religious minorities.

It was Shabazz's legacy and the advocacy work of his family here in Canada which led the previous Conservative government to act to create the Office of Religious Freedom. It was not some theoretical political statement about abstract rights, but an office that would and has made a real difference for people in Pakistan and all around the world.

What is the Office of Religious Freedom? The Office of Religious Freedom was established as a division of foreign affairs, now Global Affairs Canada, in the last Parliament. Incidentally, the creation of this office was announced inside a mosque. The office has an annual budget of $5 million, which is a modest sum in the scheme of things. This is 1/180th of the cost of the government's recent changes to public sector sick leave, and it is well underneath the cost of renovating 24 Sussex Drive.

This office does three main things. First, it provides training to the public service. This training is crucial to help our public servants understand underlying religious tensions and how to advance human rights and Canada's interests in the context of these dynamics.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said, “[I]f I went back to college today, I think I would probably major in comparative religion, because that’s how integrated it is in everything that we are working on and deciding and thinking about in life today.”

Helping Canada's foreign policy be informed by an understanding of religious tensions is critical in the current environment.

Second, this office does direct advocacy, speaking out about and bringing attention to the plight of persecuted religious minorities.

Third, this office funds direct on-the-ground projects with local partners in countries like Pakistan, projects which advance religious freedom. That is in fact where most of the budget goes.

This office has had considerable success. However, members do not have to take my word for it. Here is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Consular Affairs, the member for Mississauga Centre, had to say recently about the work of the office in Ukraine:

As a part of broader efforts to cultivate long-term stability, tolerance, and respect for human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, Global Affairs Canada, through the Office of Religious Freedom, is supporting two projects in Ukraine to promote interfaith dialogue and to strengthen the capacity of local authorities to respond to hate crimes.

As the hon. member is aware, the Office of Religious Freedom has advocated on behalf of religious communities under threat, opposed religious hatred and intolerance, and promoted pluralism and respect for diversity abroad.

The quote continues:

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already stated repeatedly, we are grateful for Dr. Andrew Bennett's service as the head of the Office of Religious Freedom and for his ingenuity, sensitivity, and competency over the past three years.

That is clearly very high praise for this office from the member for Mississauga Centre.

Here is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, had to say recently about the work of the office in Nigeria:

In its efforts to combat Boko Haram's history of inter-communal violence in the region, Canada, through the Office of Religious Freedom, supported a two-year project to promote interfaith dialogue and conflict mediation in Plateau State, Nigeria. We are well aware of the good work it has done. The project successfully developed a community-based mechanism to help defuse tensions between different religious and ethnic groups, and has been used by the Nigerian government on various occasions, including in response to attacks and bombings in Jos and in the lead up to Nigeria's elections in March 2015. While this phase of the project concluded in January 2015, our government is pleased that Canada has been able to continue to support this model for inter-communal dialogue in neighbouring conflict-affected regions in Nigeria....

Listening to those eloquent words from Liberal members, one might wonder who could possibly be opposed to this office. Who could possibly oppose this clearly good and necessary work? Given the evidence and given this good work, one might be inclined to think it would be obvious that this office should be renewed. I believe it is obvious. However, there have been critics, and it is important to take this opportunity to respond to some of the arguments that the critics have made.

There are some who seem to have something of an allergy to any office of government which uses the word “religion”. They react negatively to any reference to religion in the context of government action. Let us be very clear about this. This office is not about promoting religion. It is about promoting religious freedom. These are two fundamentally different things.

Western democratic governments are not in the business of promoting religion, but all governments have to be in the business of protecting freedom, including freedom of religion. Notably, those who ask for state non-interference in religion are themselves expressing support for religious freedom.

Religious freedom includes atheists. It includes the right not to believe. In fact, atheists have direct representation on the Office of Religious Freedom's external advisory committee. The right to believe as a non-believer is frankly one of the most threatened expressions of religious freedom in the world today. Canada's Office of Religious Freedom advocates for atheists in countries like Bangladesh, where they are particularly vulnerable.

Freedom of religion is not a strictly religious idea. It is recognized in article 18 of the UN charter. It states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

If not about religion as such, what is freedom of religion all about?

The UN charter has it right. Freedom of religion is fundamentally about freedom of thought, the freedom for people to think about their fundamental purpose, their place in the universe, and then to act that out how they see fit. This freedom of thought is clearly essential to the human experience. Freedom of religion is about so much more than the phenomenological elements of religion. It is in fact something entirely different in kind. Again, the office exists to promote religious freedom, the kind of freedom of thought identified in the UN charter. It is not about promoting religion.

A second objection we have heard is from those who say that human rights are universal, interdependent, and indivisible, and therefore they do not see a need for a separate office of religious freedom. Of course, we can all agree that rights are interdependent and indivisible. However, we are also well served by centres of excellence within government and within the Department of Global Affairs, which focus on specific areas.

To name another example, we have a department for the status of women. Certainly, human rights are universal, interdependent, and indivisible, but we still have, and we should have, a department that focuses specifically on the status of women.

Why is it important that we have these types of centres of excellence? Because to have all types of rights lumped together risks a situation in which no one is focused upon individual specific areas of rights and rights violations. Without specific centres of excellence, individual areas that need attention could risk getting lost in one murky interdependent and indivisible soup.

Interdependence and indivisibility have never before been used as arguments against some degree of specialization. The natural sciences are interdependent and indivisible, yet we are still well served by having those who specialize in chemistry, biology, physics, and in subparts of each.

A third objection we have heard is from those who say that this is merely a political ploy, that the creation of the office was designed for so-called pandering to ethnocultural diaspora communities in Canada. A writer for iPolitics said this in 2013:

Diaspora politics can become a double-edged sword if left in the hands of politicians. As evidence, look no further than the new Office of Religious Freedom — a policy outcome one might expect when parties curry favour with particular ethnic constituencies.

There was something very dark about these kinds of arguments. So-called ethnic constituencies have as much right to expect that their priorities are reflected in government policy as anyone else. It is true that new Canadians, who are more likely to have ongoing personal and familial connections to those facing religious persecution in other countries, tend to be particularly supportive of this office. However, to describe policies that reflect the priorities of new Canadians as pandering is unnecessarily pejorative and it is a unique kind of pejorative tone often used to denigrate policies that are important to new Canadians.

It is certainly also true that this policy is not just important to new Canadians. Members of diaspora communities, which have been in Canada for generations, and really all Canadians, can see the value of the work that is being done here.

A fourth objection we have heard is from those who suggested the office is supposedly just about Christians and the preferencing of Christian concerns in international affairs. Of note should be the fact that this objection and the previous objection are in fact mutually exclusive and yet are often made simultaneously by the same people. The office could not possibly be both about focusing on Christians and also aimed at new ethnocultural communities. However, it would be evident to anyone who looks at the list of projects the office supports that it works with and for a wide range of different communities.

For example, a recent project gave $290,000 to the Aga Khan Foundation for development and distribution of children's books that promoted pluralism among school-aged children in Bangladesh. Working through a Muslim organization, this project also particularly is important to the atheist community, which faces growing persecution in Bangladesh. Non-Christian groups, in fact, Sikh, Jewish and Muslim leaders in Canada have taken the lead on calling for the renewal of this office. Earlier this year, representatives from these three communities sent a joint letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs pleading with him to do the right thing and to renew this office.

A vast range of communities are represented on the office's external advisory committee. Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians and, yes, atheists are represented on the external advisory committee as well.

With respect to this objection, it is important to note that this office does provide some support to some Christians. Christians are indisputably one of the most persecuted religious communities anywhere in the world. Long-standing Christian communities, which have existed in the Middle East since almost the time of Christ and since long before Christianity spread to western Europe, or certainly North America, are under intense pressure, which includes, in various cases, systematic discrimination, growing cultural bias, regular violence, and even attempts at total extermination. These people happen to share a faith with western colonizers, but these indigenous Christian communities bear no responsibility whatsoever for colonization. They have as much right to live in peace and security as anyone else.

When I talked to other non-Christian faith groups, strikingly they often raised the increasingly desperate plight of Christians as a matter of significant concern. CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, for example, has been vocal in support of the plight of persecuted Christians, and we should listen to what it has to say in this respect. This office does not focus uniquely on Christians but does not ignore them either.

A fifth and final objection that I hear to the Office of Religious Freedom is that its work is in some way colonialist. A recent commentary piece in the Toronto Star said:

The international promotion of religious freedom by Western states risks repeating “civilizing” colonial missions, imposing fixed standards without sensitivity to cultural and historical specificities...

Those who suggest that the good work this office is doing to advance religious freedom is somehow about advancing narrowly western values clearly do not understand the work of this office or the context in which it operates. This office does not seek to dictate to other countries. It works with and provides vital support for programs on the ground. It works with local leaders and leverages local knowledge. That is why it has earned such high praise from diaspora communities and others with whom it directly works.

This is not about western values but about universal human values laid out very clearly in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those who object to the promotion of religious freedom on the grounds that it is a “western” value are often the same people who have the same objections to efforts to advance gender equality, democracy, and other principles of human society, which have long been recognized as universal.

Because of my family's connection to Pakistan, I can speak best to our work in that country. Very clearly we are not interested in promoting some western construction of what Pakistan should be. We want to see the restoration of the pluralistic Pakistan that my wife's grandmother Molly grew up in. This was her reality. This was Mohammad Ali Jinnah's vision, and this was Chavez Bhatti's dream: the restoration of Pakistan's historic traditions, not the imposition of western ones.

When it comes to this office, the government has refused to give a clear answer. However, with 10 days to go until the current mandate runs out, it is high time it communicates its decision, and this motion is necessary to give people working in this area the clarity they need. Most important, people who rely on this office are waiting for an answer.

If the government recognizes the good work of this office, will it simply say yes so the work can continue uninterrupted? If it is determined to kill this office, could it at least explain why, could it at least give us some kind of a reason?

Two weeks ago, I attended a commemoration held in Toronto to honour Chavez Bhatti. There I met Rimsha Masih, a Christian teenager who was accused of blasphemy in Pakistan and only found safety after being spirited away to Canada. I think of my wife's grandmother's reality as a child in pluralistic Pakistan. I think now of Rimsha's reality with the challenges facing Pakistan. This is why this work and this motion matter so much. For one-quarter of the cost of the recent member's office budget increase, this office is saving lives and giving hope to people like her. Therefore, I urge members to reflect on the good work this office is doing and to please support this motion.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very dignified speech. We share his values about the universality of freedom of religion.

Could we agree among parliamentarians that today is about the best means to promote the values we share and the freedom we want to fight for everywhere in the world? This is about the means and the commitment. The commitment is the same for all members of the House and we need to find the best way for Canada to fight for freedom of religion everywhere in the world?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not willing to guarantee at all that this debate is merely about the means. The mandate letter that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was given made absolutely no mention of religious freedom. We hear more verbal support for the idea of religious freedom after our party continually has raised this issue in the House. However, again, there is no mention of it whatsoever in the mandate letter.

If the government intends to kill this office on the basis that we can do it another way, I would humbly ask it to acknowledge the incredible good work this office is already doing. If this office is working to do such good work, then what other possible explanation could there be for the government's killing it than a lack of commitment to the underlying objectives?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for standing up for religious freedom in our country.

My question is on the member's point about having this additional office. As the chair for the status of women committee, everyone in the House agrees that women's equality is a value that we share. However, to get the progress needed, we have created a committee that will do additional work. Even beyond that, when pay equity came up as a topic, even though it could have been addressed by the status of women committee, an extra committee was put in place because of the need to make that additional progress at speed.

Could the member comment on that in relation to the work that is needed to be done in the Office of Religious Freedom?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an excellent point by the member. I want to salute the good work she is doing in the areas she has discussed.

Of course, we know that discrimination against women is interconnected with other kinds of challenges and prejudices that may exist. It may have a relationship to issues of poverty in certain cases, or issues of racial and cultural prejudice as well. However, that does not mean we do not focus on discrimination against women as a distinct area, recognizing those interconnections, but we still need a focus on it as part of the broader picture.

The same point goes for freedom of religion. Of course there is an interconnection among different kinds of threats to fundamental human rights. That is certainly the case, but actually having the expertise and the capacity within the Department of Global Affairs to understand the role that religious persecution plays is as well of great importance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on what the Minister of Foreign Affairs so eloquently put forward for the member. In regard to Canadian values, we recognize the importance of freedom of religion and freedom of thought. We believe in this wholeheartedly. However, surely to goodness the member across the way would recognize that there are many ways the Canadian government can ensure that those values that Canadians hold so closely to their hearts are in fact addressed, whether within our boundaries of Canada or as a foreign policy, and that there are many ways to deal with this issue. Would the member agree with that?

At the same time, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out, I think it is fair to say that all members of this privileged chamber are great advocates for freedom of thought and freedom of religion. Would the member agree with that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that the approach of the government in this respect is quite curious. It seems, from the questions, that the Liberals do not intend to support the renewal of this office, and yet they wish to profess that they believe in the underlying objectives.

May I say that we have this office that is already clearly doing a great job advancing and protecting religious freedom. We have statements from the various parliamentary secretaries and other members affirming the good work this office is doing. If there is a clear recognition that this office is working well to advance certain objectives, then why in the world would they blow it up and try something different?

If the Liberals really care about the underlying objectives, does it not make basic sense that, if it is not broken, they should not fix it? If it is working well now, why put all those who are involved in this area through the process of tearing it down and experimenting with some different structure? We should just let the office continue doing the good work it is doing. If the government is not willing to do that, if it is not willing to simply allow the office to continue doing its work, if it is not willing to avoid reinventing the wheel when there is clearly no need to do so, then we have to ask about what its underlying reasoning is.

There is no mention of religious freedom in the mandate letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We do not hear government members talk about religious freedom, except when they are asked about it in question period and in motions like this. Therefore, it is just not clear to me why the government is not supporting the renewal of an office that, again, is doing work that is working very well.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have just begun this debate and it seems to be clear already that the government will not be supporting this motion. In effect, Conservatives would take that as the signal that it does not support continuing the Office of Religious Freedom.

I want to ask my hon. colleague, who supports this motion, obviously, and backs it, what he thinks would be the outcome if this office were ended. Certainly, the amount of money, the $5 million, is not a huge amount, especially when the government is thinking of running a $30 billion-plus deficit. It is not about the money. The government says, and we have to believe, that it supports religious freedom around the world. What does the member think will be the outcome? What is the message to the world when Canada backs out of the fight against ISIS and ends the Office of Religious Freedom?

There are a number of other things that the government is doing that, in the Conservatives' estimation, looks as if it is backing away instead of stepping up. Is that the message that is going to be sent to the global community when we, as a nation and as a government, shut down the Office of Religious Freedom, if indeed that is what happens?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, clearly, this is not about the money. The office costs one-quarter of the cost of the recent increase to members' office budgets, or 1/180th of the cost of the change to public sector sick leave. Clearly, this is not about the money. Therefore, what is it about?

Clearly, as the member suggested, getting rid of this office would send a very negative message. It would send a message that Canada is no longer making this issue a priority; and it should be. This issue is of critical importance to so many people all around the world, people who are victims of discrimination and religious violence, people who are looking to Canada and want Canada to play a positive role in this.

It is disappointing. It sends a bad message in terms of the optics of it, but it also makes it very difficult for those who are working on specific projects in this area, which need our involvement. What is going to happen to these projects if the government intends on killing the office? What about the good work being done by the Aga Khan Foundation in Bangladesh; what about the good work being done in Nigeria, Ukraine, and other places?

This is not some theoretical debate. These are real people's lives that are affected by this office. These are real suffering people who need the benefit of this work that, over the long term, is helping to build pluralism. The government talks a good game about diversity and pluralism, so why will it not put its money where its mouth is on this motion? It just does not make any sense.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has revealed something when he says he cannot find religious freedom in the mandate letters; so, clearly the overt and repeated mention of human rights means less to him.

I would like to understand his thoughts around the way religious freedom is integrated, by definition, with human rights as a whole?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to mention human rights, but it is also important to be specific. If there were no mention of gender equality, and the government just said that human rights is included, clearly that would be insufficient because people want to see the specific mention of areas of focus.

When the government makes no mention of religious freedom whatsoever, it is transparently clear that this is not a priority for the government.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, with this motion, the official opposition is calling upon the government to renew the current mandate of Canada's Office of Religious Freedom. We must first ask why, if the former Conservative cared so much about this office, it did not create it to be sustainable. Its own budget plan called for the office's mandate to come to an end on March 31. Since the office's current mandate will end March 31, the government cannot vote for this motion, and we will vote against it.

Then, what the government will have to decide is how it will enhance and strengthen Canada's fight for religious freedom everywhere, because our government is of course determined to fight tooth and nail for religious freedom around the world. It is a fundamental universal right that is deeply important for Canadians, especially when they see how religious freedom is violated in many parts of the world.

Religious persecution has been on the rise around the world for at least 20 years now. Mosques and synagogues have been attacked and desecrated; churches have been burned or closed; temples have been vandalized. Every day, people die because of their religious beliefs. The people who are the targets of these attacks are unable to defend themselves, so they try to protect themselves or simply survive by going into exile or fleeing.

Religious persecution may be motivated by fanaticism or political radicalism, among other things. It often takes root where the rule of law is practically non-existent or where, in cases where the authorities themselves do not participate in or orchestrate such persecution, they turn a blind eye to it. Religious persecution violates the universal principles that all states subscribe to and swear to uphold when they ratify legal instruments for the protection and promotion of human rights. Because religious persecution jeopardizes the fragile balance underpinning societies, it threatens international peace and security. It is our obligation to respond.

Canada stands in solidarity with everyone who faces oppression, and even threats to their lives, due their beliefs. To defend and promote religious freedom most effectively, we have to choose the best tools and methods. It is not clear that the best method would be to renew the mandate of the Office of Religious Freedom, in its current form.

We fully appreciate the work the Office of Religious Freedom has done. We do not underestimate the qualities of Andrew Bennett. I have known Dr. Bennett since he worked at intergovernmental affairs, when I was the minister. I know that he is a solid professional, dedicated to the missions entrusted to him.

However, the government has a duty to choose the best approaches, especially for an issue as crucial as defending freedoms. From this point of view, we have to consider whether it might not be more effective to combine all of Global Affairs Canada's efforts to defend and promote human rights into a single office to advance and to leverage the resources of the department in its embassy network around the world to advance this mission.

Our ambassadors around the world have a unique role to play in advancing human rights. These ambassadors, the eyes and ears of the Canadian government abroad, now have the power to speak. They must always take into account their responsibility to promote human rights, freedom, and inclusion, a responsibility that is part of their mandate. Our ambassadors and embassies abroad understand the local context and have built networks with governments and civilians. They will therefore be a key part of our efforts.

During my recent trip to Geneva, I had the opportunity to meet our permanent representative to the United Nations and his team. We can be proud of what our representatives are accomplishing in promoting human rights.

During my stay in Geneva, I outlined Canada's renewed commitment to the United Nations and its human rights bodies, and I reiterated the $15-million commitment in new core funding for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights over the next three years.

My visit to Geneva allowed me to draw attention to the fact that the defence of human rights can be achieved through co-operation and commitment. Canada has reiterated its commitment to support the work of the UN human rights mechanisms and bodies by extending a standing invitation to the holders of special procedures mandates to visit Canada, reporting to human rights treaty bodies, actively participating in the universal periodic review, and following the recommendations made in these forums.

We commend the efforts that civil society organizations and aboriginal groups have made as part of these processes.

I am proud to say that Canada is a rich source of human rights experts, who are working on a wide range of human rights issues. I am in contact with all of those groups, and we are also having many important discussions with religious leaders to make our mission a reality.

As a result of our co-operative efforts with the United Nations here in Canada and the work being done through various diplomatic channels, Canada will continue to support the values of inclusive and accountable governance, peaceful pluralism, and respect for diversity and human rights, including the rights of women and refugees.

However, we cannot make meaningful progress if we treat each issue in isolation. There are, in fact, solid reasons to believe that human rights are best defended when treated as interconnected. Everyone's right to pray without dictation from others, or not to pray, is a freedom indivisible from freedom of conscience, expression, assembly, and movement.

I would like to quote here, in full, section 5 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

This declaration was adopted by consensus in 1993 by representatives of 171 states and was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1994.

The adoption of this declaration was a critical step in consolidating the human rights instruments with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the foundation. Section 5 is often invoked by defenders of human rights when faced with arguments by those who want to privilege certain rights while reducing the protection provided for other rights.

The indivisibility of rights has been at the heart of liberal philosophy for centuries. It is also at the heart of our government's political philosophy. The Prime Minister has placed an emphasis on ensuring human rights and freedoms are not only central to our strategic interests but representative of a moral world view that recognizes diversity as strength.

As such, the protection and promotion of all human rights, including the freedom of religion, must be treated as part of a comprehensive vision of foreign policy.

As one of the fundamental human rights, freedom of religion is important, and so, too, are freedom of assembly, speech, thought, and expression. Where freedom of religion is not respected, so too are these other freedoms not respected.

To address the issues, to mitigate the impact and improve the lives of the people facing the worst abuses, we must treat all human rights as a priority. We must orient ourselves to the cause of all people who face limits on their freedoms and denial of their basic human rights.

If we are going to defend them, we must continue the work of the office in a comprehensive fashion, embedding the principles that have sought to protect religious freedom with the interdependent freedoms I have mentioned.

Security challenges, economic pressures, climate change, gender equality, and inclusion across the board are all improved if we treat human rights and our fundamental freedoms together. The issues we face today are too great to be treated any other way.

Canada will support every effort to speak out when human rights are in question or where people are being persecuted for who they are or for their beliefs, including when human rights defenders are arrested and threatened for daring to speak out against human rights; when the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersexual community is the target of extreme violence and hate; when sexual and gender-based violence is committed against women and girls at alarmingly increasing levels; when 15 million young girls a year around the world are forced into marriage, keeping them from reaching their full potential, interrupting their education, jeopardizing their health, and making them vulnerable to violence; when children are abused, exploited, neglected, and turned into instruments of war, trafficked, or made to labour in inhuman conditions, or deprived of an education or adequate health care, and denied an opportunity to just be kids; and when people are persecuted for how they pray, when they pray, or if they pray and to whom.

We will seek to integrate all our fights for human rights, including the promotion of religious freedom, so that we may be more effective as a country at the broader objective of promoting our fundamental human rights at home and abroad.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite said that the government will fight for religious freedoms around the world. He talked about ensuring that Canada makes every effort to speak out against human rights violations, sexual and gender-based violence, and that it will look at other tools to promote human rights around the world.

Genocide is defined as an intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, racial, or religious group. We know that in the Iraqi-Syrian region, ISIL has been committing atrocities deemed to be genocide by a UN panel on March 19 last year, as well as by the United States. Both the UN and the United States have said that ISIL is committing genocide against Christians and Yazidis in the area, doing exactly what my colleague said he would stand up and fight against: sexual slavery, genital mutilation, rape, beheading, and persecution of religious minorities.

Given that our neighbours around the world are all standing up and calling this genocide and the member is talking about Canada using other tools to speak out against human rights, I would like to give him this opportunity in the House to call ISIL's actions in the Middle East what they are: genocide. Will the minister stand and call this genocide today?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course, we need to fight to resolve the awful crimes done by the so-called Islamic State and to do so with all the strength of our will to be sure that the killing and commission of sexual atrocities stop.

The definition of genocide is something that we need to consider. Canada is looking at that. We are a signatory of the International Criminal Court. The U.S. is not. There are legal considerations for the use of the word “genocide”. Also if we call the atrocities done by the so-called Islamic State genocide, why not also call those of al Qaeda and Boko Haram the same?

These are the considerations that we have to take into account, but I would suggest to my colleague that she does not care more than I do. It is a matter of using the term “genocide” in the appropriate way, but our commitment to fight this group is ironclad and will never be modified.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We recognize the importance of protecting and promoting religious freedom abroad. Would my colleague agree that Canada needs to start paying closer attention to the important issues of strengthening institutions and promoting democracy and human rights in general?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The issues she raised are very important, as are those raised by our Conservative colleagues. The question here today is not about who places the most importance on fighting for human rights. I am very disappointed that the Conservatives are once again trying to make this a partisan issue.

This is about figuring out the best approach for Canada. The Office of Religious Freedom, whose mandate will end on March 31, might not be the best way for Canada to promote and stand up for human rights, including the rights mentioned by my colleague and by my Conservative friends earlier. All members of the House want to stand up for those rights.

To suggest that that is not the case because we will not use the word “genocide” or because we are not keeping a certain office open is appalling, I think. However, that was the Conservatives' way of doing things for nearly 10 years. This is one reason they are no longer in government today. Canadians have had enough of that attitude.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the words of wisdom by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, both now and when we were on the opposition benches. I believe he well articulates the positions of the Liberal Party, and now the Government of Canada.

Canada does have a leadership role to play in the world on human rights. Even though Canada, in terms of population, is relatively small, we have the potential to carry a great deal of weight on issues such as human rights. Could he comment on the leadership role that Canada can play on this very important issue?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course Canada has a huge role to play. We are asked to be active on the human rights front everywhere.

There is a great appetite everywhere in the world for our Prime Minister and what he represents as a hope to fight for human rights. It is something the former government did. I am not disputing that. I think the work that was done to fight for the rights of children not to be forced into marriage is something that we want to continue.

However, the new government has a new approach and new ways, and we are very confident that with this new approach we will increase Canada's ability to fight for human rights, including religious freedom.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish this were not a partisan issue. I really wish that the government would simply agree to allow the office to continue to do its good work.

I thank the hon. member for his speech, and I know he has a lot of experience in this place and has contributed a great deal to our country, but I have to ask, listening to the way he described the Office of Religious Freedom, if he has actually been fully briefed on how it operates.

He talks about the need to have a network. He talks about the need to work with the ambassadors. He does not seem to be aware that these things are already happening, that we have an office that is not separate or siloed, but is directly within Global Affairs Canada. It is working to build the capacity of the department. It provides training to our staff throughout that department to be effective in addressing these issues. It is not siloed or independent. It is the kind of model that exactly fits the indivisibility he talks about.

There is no disagreement about the indivisibility of rights, but this office plays a central role within the Department of Foreign Affairs. Why will the Liberals not simply allow it to continue to do the good work it is doing? If they will not let it continue to do its work, if they will not even acknowledge that genocide against Yazidis and Christians is happening, then we would be wrong not to ask, what is behind this if the member is unwilling to take human rights and religious freedom in this serious way by allowing the work of the office to continue?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is really unfortunate to mix up the two issues as my colleague did. The recognition of a genocide is not something we take lightly. It does not mean that atrocities are not taking place. Of course atrocities are taking place, but this does have a legal meaning.

The former government, to my knowledge, did not recognize the Islamic State's actions as genocide. Why did it not do so? Is it because it did not care? Of course it cared, so why play this partisan game again? I am disgusted by this attitude.

I repeat, the Office of Religious Freedom came with some results, and we will look at how to improve our ability to work together in a more integrated way to be sure that human rights are better promoted by Canada, including rights of religious freedom.

I will not accept any suggestion that we have any other motivation than this one. That would unparliamentary.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, in order to turn this around, I would like to hear from the minister how he would invite the opposition members to join with us in building on their beginning.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say to all my colleagues that every time they identify a problem about human rights in the world, every time they have a consular case, and every time that we can work together to protect human beings, my door is open and the doors of all my colleagues are open. There are issues that should not be partisan, that are linked to our responsibilities as parliamentarians of a democracy, the great democracy of Canada. Let us work together and avoid being partisan about everything. This must end. After 10 years, let us end this game.