House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was isil.

Topics

LabourOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Cape Breton—Canso Nova Scotia

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in Geneva, the minister announced our government's ratification of the International Labour Organization's convention on minimum age. This convention requires ratifying countries to set a minimum age for employment of at least 15 years and to prohibit hazardous work for young workers. This sends a clear message about Canada's values and shows children that children's rights are not only a moral, but a legal obligation as well.

We stand together with countries around the world, denouncing child labour, exploitation, and abuse. We continue working toward the full international respect for fundamental rights for workers.

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, today's genocide debate reminds us that the Liberals are just not that interested in international human rights. That is becoming very obvious as we learn about another Liberal smoke-and-mirrors show. Their new office of everything to replace the Office of Religious Freedom is not actually a separate office at all. It is just a line within the Department of Foreign Affairs, without an ambassador.

How about an actual office, with an actual ambassador, with an actual mandate and actual responsibilities?

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country B.C.

Liberal

Pam Goldsmith-Jones LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, how about an actual office of human rights, freedoms and inclusion? The new office expands on the work of the former office and holds a comprehensive vision to improve all human rights, of course, including the freedom of religion.

In order to support this approach, our budget dedicated to the promotion of human rights has tripled. Canadians are stronger not in spite of our differences, but because of them. Promoting acceptance and protecting the differences that make us so unique cannot be divided. They are universal, indivisible, and interdependent.

Physician-Assisted DyingOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Senate amended Bill C-14 by deleting the criterion of reasonably foreseeable death in order to allow the most vulnerable to have access to medical assistance in dying. That is what the Barreau du Québec, the lawyers for the Carter family, the eminent constitutional law expert Peter Hogg, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP were calling for all along.

Why is the Minister of Justice intent on withdrawing the right to self-determination from the most vulnerable people in society, the people suffering from a grievous and irremediable illness, disease, or disability that causes intolerable suffering?

Physician-Assisted DyingOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the amendment that the Senate voted on last night reflects and puts forward a substantive amendment to Bill C-14. We sought to thoughtfully consider this complex matter to ensure we respected the rights of all Canadians and balanced those rights, balanced personal autonomy with respect for the vulnerable.

This is a momentous change in our country in what we are doing with respect to medical assistance in dying. We need to take a responsible approach that is reasonable, and this is what we have found in Bill C-14.

Physician-Assisted DyingOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister is avoiding this fundamental question, and I will put it to her in another way.

Given that medical assistance in dying can only be accessed as a result of a freely given and informed request that is strictly voluntary, on what basis is the minister assuming the authority to oppose the will and the autonomy of the most vulnerable people in our society, those who are in unbearable pain, knowing that she is imposing on them the inhumane burden of a hunger strike, or of having to win their case in court?

Physician-Assisted DyingOral Questions

3 p.m.

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this chamber before, the Supreme Court of Canada courts do not hold a monopoly on the promotion or protection of human rights. Parliament plays a role in terms of being an ally to the vulnerable.

We have sought, in a very considered way, to put forward legislation that will provide a national framework for medical assistance in dying in our country. Just because there are constitutional risks with respect to a particular piece of legislation does not mean the bill is unconstitutional.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of this year's recipients of the Governor General's Performing Arts Awards. The recipients of the Lifetime Artistic Achievement Award are Susan Aglukark, Marie Chouinard, Ben Heppner, Robert Lantos, and Suzanne Lebeau. The recipient of the Ramon John Hnatyshyn Award for Voluntarism in the Performing Arts is John D McKellar.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I invite all hon. members to meet the recipients at a reception in Room 216 North after question period.

I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Ed Doherty, Minister responsible for Service New Brunswick, Aboriginal Affairs and the Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation for the Province of New Brunswick.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if someone from the government could inform the House as to what we will be debating for the remainder of this week and next week when we return from our constituencies.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalMinister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, I would love to inform the House what the plan is.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the Conservative opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-15, the budget legislation. We have been in discussion with our opposition colleagues, and I hope we will conclude third reading at the end of day tomorrow.

Monday and Tuesday of next week will be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will have a debate on concurrence of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities concerning the transportation of grain. Following that debate, we would then take up second reading of Bill C-13, which implements the WTO trade facilitation agreement.

On Thursday, we will resume third reading debate on Bill C-6, Citizenship Act amendments.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, should you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the motion that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, when the order is for consideration of report stage or at third reading stage of Bill C-210, An Act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender), if the member for Ottawa—Vanier is not present to move the concurrence of report stage or the third reading motions, they may be moved by the member for Orléans.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on April 18, 2016 by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby concerning the procedural admissibility of Motion No. 43 standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

I would like to thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for raising this matter, as well as the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge for their contributions.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby contended during his intervention that the motion in question, Motion No. 43, contravenes Standing Order 68(4), which grants ministers of the crown the power to introduce motions of instruction to a committee to study a matter and bring forth a bill based thereon. As there is no explicit provision in the Standing Orders for private members to do the same, and the very few relevant examples provide no justification, he concluded that the motion is inadmissible.

The House leader of the official opposition, as well as the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, agreed that the Standing Orders do limit this prerogative to ministers only but continued, arguing that that alone cannot therefore be interpreted as the only way to provide such instructions to a committee.

In fact, this is precisely why the motion sponsored by the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge provides for a special order that allows the House to determine ultimately how it wishes to proceed. This, he felt, was in keeping with the regular practice of the House to adopt motions to regulate its proceedings or to provide for procedural mechanisms that are not found in its Standing Orders.

Thus, where the disagreement lies in this matter is not in whether a private member can propose a motion instructing a committee to bring in a bill pursuant to Standing Order 68(4), for there is agreement that they cannot. That is a provision that is now reserved strictly for ministers.

Instead, the question is rather the following: Do the Standing Orders or practices of this House permit the presentation of such a motion?

Since Confederation, the rules of the House of Commons have provided for two methods by which public bills can be introduced in the House; that is, either a member moves for leave to introduce a bill or a committee presents a report after having been ordered by the House to prepare and bring in a bill. The latter method has been employed only rarely.

Changes to the Standing Orders, and in particular Standing Order 68, in February 1994 specified that a minister could move such a motion under government orders, while, with the addition of paragraph (4)(b), a private member would have to do so through the process of private members’ business.

Then, in March 2003, the third report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons recommended several provisional changes to the rules pertaining to private members' business, including the temporary suspension of Standing Orders 68(4)(b) and 7(b).

Thus, since the concurrence in the report by the House on March 17, 2003, private members have no longer been able to instruct a committee to prepare and bring in a bill pursuant to Standing Order 68. This became a permanent change to the Standing Orders on May 11, 2005, when the House concurred in the 37th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Of note is the fact that, during the time that Standing Order 68(4)(b) was suspended, notice was given of a private members’ motion instructing a committee to bring in a bill pursuant to that same Standing Order. On March 22, 2004, the Acting Speaker made a statement in the House declaring that, due to an error, motion No. 479 was improperly before the House and directing the clerk to modify the text of the motion so that it took the form of a resolution rather than an instruction.

However, while the Standing Orders describe the process for private members' business, they do not fully prescribe the limits to what is admissible as a private member's motion, other than those that exist in relation to the financial prerogative of the crown and the limit set out in Standing Order 68(4).

Other guidance can be found in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 1119, which provides a broad description of the types of motions that private members can introduce:

Private Members’ motions are used to introduce a wide range of issues and are framed either as orders or resolutions, depending on their intent. Motions attempting to make a declaration of opinion or purpose, without ordering or requiring a particular course of action, are considered resolutions....The government is not bound to adopt a specific policy or course of action as a result of the adoption of such a resolution since the House is only stating an opinion or making a declaration of purpose. This is in contrast to those motions whose object is to give a direction to committees, Members or officers of the House or to regulate House proceedings and, as such, are considered Orders once adopted by the House.

In the past, such orders by private members have not usually taken the form of instruction to a committee to bring in a bill. While it may seem that two exceptions to this are found in Motion M-411 in 2003 and Motion M-541 in 2004, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby pointed out, their admissibility was never questioned as these items were neither placed on the order of precedence, nor moved or debated. Thus, they cannot be looked upon as precedents either way.

Given the evidence, the Chair cannot state categorically that Motion M-43, in its current form, offends the provisions and limitations of Standing Order 68(4); its wording is not so direct as to allow the Chair to draw that firm a conclusion. Instead, Motion M-43 is worded in such a way that it could in fact be viewed as an alternate path to Standing Order 68(4), as has been suggested by both the House leader for the official opposition and the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge. They indicated that, although the motion does propose an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance, it also takes the form of a special order so that the House may proceed in a manner not stipulated in the rules of the House, should it so choose.

O'Brien and Bosc, at page 528, further supports the notion that it is ultimately up to the House to determine whether to adopt a proposal put before it:

A motion is a proposal moved by one Member in accordance with well-established rules that the House do something, order something done or express an opinion with regard to some matter. A motion initiates a discussion and gives rise to the question to be decided by the House.

Accordingly, I am prepared to permit debate on the motion standing in the name of the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge to continue in order to provide the House with the opportunity to determine whether or not it wishes to proceed in the manner outlined in the member's motion. Therefore, the motion will retain its position on the order of precedence and can proceed in its current form.

That being said, the Chair remains aware of different views expressed in reference to the admittedly unusual approach set out in Motion No. 43. In order to provide the House and the Chair with greater clarity and assurance, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may wish to examine the matter further, with a view to reviewing the guidelines with respect to the procedural admissibility of private member’s motions and report back to the House any conclusions and recommendations at which it may arrive.

I would like to thank hon. members for their attention in this matter.

Motion

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

There are five minutes remaining in questions and comments after the speech of the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Opposition Motion—ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Whitby Ontario

Liberal

Celina Caesar-Chavannes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his statement. Again, I believe he could find consensus on all sides of the House that we believe that the atrocities against vulnerable populations by ISIS/ISIL are deplorable.

However, I asked this earlier today. I saw that the former government, when it had the opportunity to do so, put forth motions related to ISIS. Where they talked about the threat of ISIS to vulnerable populations and its barbaric acts, they did not include the word genocide. I would ask the member why they did not do that when they had the opportunity.

Opposition Motion—ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, as has already been clearly articulated here, members of the previous government during the Conservative time clearly said that it was genocide. We did not need a motion to pronounce it because the government already did pronounce it as a genocide.

Something I was incredibly proud of is that at the time our prime minister, our foreign minister, and our defence minister would stand up and say that Daesh was committing a genocide against the vulnerable religious and ethnic minorities in Syria and Iraq. I wish that the current government would do that, that it would show some leadership and show some backbone and actually stand up and denounce ISIS, and stand with our allies rather than wriggle around on a hung jury that sits at the UN Security Council because of the veto powers of China and Russia.

Opposition Motion—ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent work on this issue and his great speech.

Listening to the speeches for most of the day today and during question period as well, I find it disheartening that writing this letter is all of a sudden going to solve the problems that ISIS is causing in the Middle East, especially with the Yazidi girls who have been forced into sex slavery. We had the news that 19 Yazidi girls were burned alive the other day.

We also heard today during one of the questions from across the floor that our CF-18s just fly over and all of a sudden this is going to solve some problems. Our CF-18s were having a much bigger impact on what was going on in there.

What is the connection that my hon. colleague feels in the inability to see a genocide and what has happened with our CF-18s?

Opposition Motion—ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Alberta for his observations that he has had through the day here. It was really disappointing to listen during question period to the idea that the Liberals, who often preach the responsibility to protect, can only send a letter.

Responsibility to protect is actually stepping up and taking the fight to the genocide group that is committing the atrocities, that group being ISIS. That means having our CF-18s actually dropping bombs on the heads of ISIS. That means plowing a way so that the religious and ethnic minorities can get away. That means that we are there supporting those on the ground with air support, so they can take the fight to ISIS.

There is a new offensive happening right now, as we speak, in Fallujah and Kirkuk and around Mosul. The Kurdistan regional government still is saying that it needs more air support. We should have kept our CF-18s in that fight.

I call upon the government to do the right thing. If we are going to defeat this genocidal group, if we are going to stop this genocide on the ground right now, we have to do what was done in World War I to stop the Armenian genocide and what was done in World War II to stop the Holocaust. We have to get in there and we have to actually be on the front lines, supporting our allies and stopping the slaughter of innocent women, children, and men who are ethnic and religious minorities.

Opposition Motion—ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Saint-Laurent Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, this House stands together in solidarity with the victims of ISIL atrocities. That is why our government broadened Canada's engagement in the Middle East and, in particular, in the fight against ISIL.

We are focused on eradicating ISIL today and preventing its return tomorrow. However, today's debate on the Conservative motion is not about the fight, but rather on the determination of whether these atrocities may constitute genocide.

Our government strongly condemns the terrorist acts committed by ISIL, and we are actively supporting the prosecution of perpetrators and the investigations into ISIL crimes to determine if some amount to genocide. While we fully respect the motion tabled by our Conservative colleagues, it gets ahead of these investigations.

Furthermore, the motion before us does not go far enough to address punishing the perpetrators.

On May 11, our Conservative friends said a few times that several parliaments had recognized the genocide. I would like to tell it like it is. No national parliament has followed the European Parliament's lead on that except the British Parliament, and the British government dissociated itself from that view.

In the United States, Secretary Kerry said that he was speaking on his own behalf, not on behalf of the American government. I will share a quote to confirm that shortly. Today, I want to make the point that, on May 11, the Swedish Parliament rejected motions similar to the one before us today.

I therefore invite all of my colleagues to demonstrate the same wisdom as our Swedish counterparts because, if we were to vote in favour of this motion, we would be setting a deplorable precedent.

For the first time, the House of Commons of Canada would label crimes as genocide without following the absolute rigour that characterizes past decisions.

To avoid this mistake, we must vote against this motion. We should not play politics about that.

The government has done everything in our power to avoid this divisive situation. Regrettably, our Conservative colleagues have made clear that they are not interested in amendments.

The House can be proud that, each time we recognized genocide in the past, we did so based on overwhelming evidence and a great sense of conviction, history, and moral responsibility.

In the case of the atrocities committed by ISIL, we are not dealing with events that happened decades ago. The evidence is being gathered as we speak. Canada is playing its part to assemble this evidence.

Some of these crimes may indeed deserve the description of genocide, but for the label to stick, it is important to have that determination made by an independent judicial process recognized by the international community.

Whether today's crimes can be considered genocide is not for me to determine, nor is it for all of the upstanding and concerned members who join the debate today.

The determination should first be a legal one by a competent court, not a political one.

Let us look at the relevant questions in order. What is genocide? Can any of ISIL's crimes be considered genocide? What process should be used to determine that? What effort is Canada making to get the process under way?

Let us start with the first question. What is genocide? The Conservative motion would have us indiscriminately label all of the atrocities perpetrated by ISIL as genocide. However, as heinous as a crime may be, it is not necessarily genocide.

To declare crimes as genocide, the genocide convention and the Rome Statute both require a demonstrable specific intent to target and destroy an identifiable group in whole or in part.

It is not enough to establish that abhorrent, widespread, unlawful killings, mistreatment, sexual violence, or mass deportation of civilians have taken place. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that such atrocities were committed as part of a campaign to totally or partially destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. In the absence of intent to commit genocide, such crimes would likely amount to war crimes.

The International Court of Justice has interpreted the obligation to prevent genocide as not including an obligation to intervene militarily and held that the scope of the obligation to intervene, to prevent, is commensurate with the state's ability to influence the situation.

Whether the atrocities committed by ISIL are crimes of war or genocide does not change our determination to put an end to them. The purpose of our military engagement as a member of the international coalition against ISIL is to eradicate the terrorist group. Our goal in supporting the Iraqi forces is to strengthen their ability to fight ISIL.

Now for the second question. Can any of ISIL's crimes be considered genocide?

ISIL has committed many crimes, many atrocities against religious and ethnic communities in Iraq and in Syria, including against Yazidis, Christians, Shiites, and also Sunnis.

UN bodies and NGOs have reported killings, rape and sexual slavery, forced religious conversions, and the conscription of children.

A March 2015 report of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that there is evidence to suggest that ISIL may have committed genocide.

UN investigators found that ISIL may have committed acts of genocide against the Yazidis in Iraq in the summer of 2014. To date, it has not been established that acts of genocide were committed in Syria or that groups other than the Yazidis were the targets of genocide. There is a need for further independent investigation. The evidence is mounting.

As territory is retaken from ISIL, evidence of the group's heinous crimes will continue to be uncovered.

The UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Iraq told the Security Council last month that more than 50 mass graves have been discovered so far in several areas of Iraq.

That brings us to the next question. What process should be used? The word “genocide” must be reserved for the worst possible crimes. We must therefore be extremely rigorous with respect to the process for officially recognizing that genocide was committed.

International tribunals can make a determination that genocide occurred when looking at individual conduct and responsibility. For example, the International Criminal Court has indicted Sudanese President Bashir on charges of genocide.

The ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were set up by the UN Security Council to try individuals for their participation in atrocities, and they found that individuals did indeed commit genocide.

Iraq and Syria are not parties to the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, but the Security Council could refer ISIL's crimes in these countries to the court.

Our government is of the view that, as much as we are appalled by the horrendous acts of violence committed by ISIL, investigations by competent authorities are necessary to reach a proper judicial determination. We are by no means alone in that assessment.

As the U.K. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Tobias Ellwood, said on April 20:

...genocide is a matter of legal rather than political opinion. We as the Government are not the prosecutor, the judge or the jury.... It is essential that these decisions are based on credible judicial process.... Ultimately, this is a question for the courts to decide;

Also Adama Dieng, the UN Secretary-General's Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, shares the view that an independent investigation is needed to assess whether some of ISIL's atrocities can be qualified as genocide.

As for U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, he said the following:

I am neither judge, nor prosecutor, nor jury with respect to the allegations of genocide...and ethnic cleansing by specific persons. Ultimately, the full facts must be brought to light by an independent investigation and through formal legal determination made by a competent court or tribunal. But the United States will strongly support efforts to collect, document, preserve, and analyze the evidence of atrocities, and we will do all we can to see that the perpetrators are held accountable.

I agree with every word Secretary Kerry said. Canada is and will continue to take an active role in supporting further independent investigations and the prosecution of ISIL atrocities.

This brings me to my final question: What effort is Canada making to get the process underway?

The United Nations, Canada, and several of our allies have called for the matter to be brought before the courts.

This past week, I wrote a letter to the UN Security Council president, calling on that body to establish a mechanism to determine whether ISIL's violations constitute acts of genocide. My letter also called on the Security Council to identify the perpetrators of such violations and to take measures to ensure that they are held to account for their crimes, including indictments to the International Criminal Court, as appropriate.

Canada is providing significant financial assistance to United Nations bodies and civil society organizations to document and investigate ISIL crimes. Through this support, Canada is providing training on how to collect and analyze evidence to ensure that it can be used to determine the existence of genocide and in future domestic or international prosecutions.

Canada will continue to support initiatives to investigate and document atrocities, including through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The French government has recently called for reform on how UN Security Council permanent members vote on mass atrocities. France has called for permanent members to voluntarily and collectively undertake not to use the veto where a mass atrocity has been ascertained. This is a fundamental undertaking, which our government will fully support and which I will announce at a United Nations Security Council meeting in New York tomorrow.

In closing, it is very important that any recognition of genocide come from an entirely independent and extremely rigorous legal assessment.

The recognition of genocide must not be confused with some sort of barometer of our moral outrage in the face of these atrocities. No matter how repulsed we are by the slaughter, that is not enough to call it “genocide”.

I would also like to encourage all of my colleagues in the House to resist the kind of political pressure that would push us to exploit the word “genocide” to prove our determination to combat terrorist groups.

Using the label “genocide” and having the willingness to fight those groups are two different things.

The whole House shares in its outrage at the atrocities committed by ISIL in Syria and Iraq. ISIL has committed atrocities that may constitute genocide. This government stands with the United Nations and its international partners in calling for a judicial investigation on this matter and for an end to impunity for the perpetrators of serious international crimes.

We welcome our Conservative colleagues to amend their motion to reflect the approach taken by the Government of Canada and by the international community to call on the United Nations to launch a responsible international investigation.

Opposition Motion—ISISBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have ever heard a clearer example of how moral relativism can paralyze a national government.

I wonder if the member opposite could comment on this statement:

My purpose in appearing before you today is to assert that, in my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yezidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims. Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions....

What is it about that statement that the minister opposite does not understand? That is a statement made by John Kerry expressing the United States' position on the nature of Daesh and the nature of the genocide. It has declared it a genocide. I can read him a quote by the representative from the House of Representatives who brought the motion forward. He stated that this should finally end the discussion about whether this is genocide or not.

To be honest, the member opposite is misleading the House when he quotes selectively from John Kerry's remarks and does not use the part that I just read to him.