Debates of June 9th, 2016

Opposition Motion—ISIS

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's question, however, that is precisely what our government is demanding at the moment, a fact- and evidence-based decision in making this call and defining what is going on in Syria and Iraq.

That is exactly why we have the position that we do, because as our government has stated from the beginning, we base our decisions on fact and evidence.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I would have more solidarity with the government's position if we were actually seeing something from the government about a willingness to talk about the atrocities committed by Bashar al-Assad that are monumental.

We can talk about ISIS because the brutality is so vivid and it is so brazen about it, but we are seeing similar acts of brutality by a regime that has strong allies on the UN Security Council. We will be looking to the UN Security Council to launch an investigation, but it will not be launching an investigation against one of its key allies, which is the Bashar al-Assad Syrian regime.

I want to ask this member a question. Where are we going to see Canada in terms of standing up on the overall issue of human rights crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide that is being conducted throughout that region, and not just against the death cult of ISIS but against a government that is getting backing by some of our allies?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to look at the calls that the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have made, precisely with regard to incorrigible acts that have been committed against innocent civilians within the region, the appeals to the United Nations Security Council, the appeals for respecting and upholding humanitarian principles, and the urge to respect international humanitarian law.

This is something that our Minister of Foreign Affairs and our Minister of International Development and La Francophonie have done consistently. When the minister and I were at the World Humanitarian Summit, we were very clear that it is so important in these international crises that all parties respect humanitarian principles, respect international humanitarian law, and that we are committed to ensuring these principles are upheld.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the importance of applying reason to this argument, this debate. I wonder if she could expand on that, reason over emotion. I would love to hear her thoughts on that.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is times like these where it is compelling, when we see the videos, when we see the images, to want to name what is happening.

However, what we do know is that these are mass atrocities, and we also know that there is an important legal history and an important jurisprudence that is founded on these terms, and that we have an obligation, as Canada, to be part of that international community and that international legal process.

It is up to us in this House to make sure that we are coming to this debate and coming to this issue with cool heads, regardless of how emotional and how horrific these acts are.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to engage in this debate.

As I said earlier, I think the member for Timmins—James Bay said it best when he said that these are important things and they need to be debated here in the House of Commons.

The government and people of Canada stand together in solidarity with the victims of ISIS atrocities. The Minister of National Defence and I share the Minister of Foreign Affairs' determination to eradicate the threat. Our government is taking substantial and concrete actions to degrade ISIL and to ultimately help Iraq security forces to defeat this villainous plague themselves.

Every member of the House surely feels that the carnage and slaughter committed against minority groups and communities by ISIL demonstrates an undeniable evil intent. On that point, I think the phrasing of most of the motion is actually quite accurate.

All Canadians are appalled by ISIL's murderous acts, and they fill our news feeds almost daily. No matter what we label them, no words are strong enough to reflect our opposition to ISIL's actions.

All members of this House debated Canada's response to the crisis in Iraq and Syria back in February. Indeed, over 98 members of this House took part in the debate, which I consider to be an outstanding participation. We voted on the motion on March 8, and our collective view of ISIL is unequivocal that it must be stopped.

For all the opposition's good intentions with the motion, finding the right words to express our outrage and condemn ISIL will not get the job done. ISIL is a complex and multi-faceted phenomenon that demands a complex and comprehensive response. It has thousands of fighters, a sophisticated social media strategy, and the support of pervasive criminal networks that are adaptable and unhindered by geography.

While coalition forces have achieved remarkable success in degrading ISIL's strength, it still retains enough power to cause damage. The challenges associated with defeating ISIL were evident when the Chief of Defence Staff visited northern Iraq. In late April, General Jonathan Vance visited our special operations for our training, advising, and assisting forces in the fight against ISIL. He saw first-hand the crucial role that our Canadian Armed Forces will play in supporting the Iraq security forces who will battle in Mosul, Fallujah, with Mosul being the critical Iraqi city that remains in the extremists' stronghold.

What General Vance witnessed aligned strongly with what the Minister of National Defence saw and heard as he travelled in the region. It is clear from their experiences that our new three-year strategy to address the ongoing crisis in Iraq, Syria, and the wider region is the right approach.

As members know, following consultation with our coalition allies and partners, and a comprehensive review with Canadian Armed Forces here at home, Canada has refocused its role in the global coalition to counter ISIL. Our efforts are directed at the countries most affected in the crisis: Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon. Our revised engagement reflects the needs and requests expressed to Canada, while at the same time leveraging Canadian capabilities and value-added expertise.

It is a whole-of-government approach to enhance security and stability, provide humanitarian assistance, and help our partners to deliver social services, rebuild infrastructure, and ensure good governance. In line with this new strategy, Canada has extended our military mission in Iraq and Syria until March 31, 2017.

Canada is increasing its total complement of military personnel to approximately 830 as well as its support for coalition members and Iraqi security forces in the planning and execution of our military operations, in particular, in the areas of planning, targeting, and intelligence. We are tripling the number of forces personnel assigned to our training, advise, and assist mission for local forces in Iraq. Last month we also added three Griffon helicopters to the mission to enhance in-theatre tactical support transport, including medical evacuations.

On the intelligence front, an all-source intelligence centre was opened in theatre in late April. This capability responsible for collaborating, synthesizing, and analyzing information is derived from a variety of sources. This intelligence is then used to inform operational planning, ultimately contributing to the protection of coalition forces in the conduct of coalition operations. As we have announced, we are significantly increasing our intelligence capacity, because we understand that this is a complex interplay of forces that underlines the conflict environment in Iraq and Syria. We need to have a clearer picture of how all the pieces fit together so that we can better anticipate the impact of our actions. Our enhanced intelligence contribution will be invaluable in this regard.

Brigadier-General David Anderson, director of the global coalition's ministerial liaison team, and other Canadian Armed Forces members who are part of the multinational team, are now in Iraq to lay the foundation on which the team will provide strategic military support for the ministries of defence and interior. The role played by Brigadier-General David Anderson cannot be understated. It is extremely important that he coordinates the coalition forces and ultimately the Iraqi ministers who will be responsible for this head-on fight with ISIL. The ministerial liaison team will work with the Government of Iraq to further synchronize coalition efforts to clear ISIL from Iraq.

Members have heard in the past about various contributions of various amounts of money in humanitarian assistance, all of which has been implemented and was committed in budget 2016. The updated approach makes sense.

When Canada's military mission began in the fall 2014 it was a response to an emerging and immediate crisis. Since then the reality on the ground has changed dramatically. ISIL has lost territory and freedom of movement. It has lost over 45% of the areas it once controlled in Iraq. Its leadership is being targeted along with its organizational capability. We can trace from one point to the next point to the next point how intelligence allows the coalition forces to target the very heart of ISIL. Now that we have significantly degraded ISIL's capabilities, the coalition is focused on dismantling this extremist and violent threat.

A lasting solution rests on the shoulders of the indigenous ground forces, the Iraqi security forces that we are training. We are now able to conduct offensive operations and reclaim territory once held by ISIS. Our training and advising is empowering the local forces to establish the necessary security conditions for the return of the displaced persons we are talking about here today and follow up on stabilization activities.

I am extremely proud of the tremendous service our men and women in uniform have deployed on Operation Impact and I know that all members of the House feel the same way.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and the colleague from the Liberal Party who spoke just previously used some important words. They used words like “abhor”, “outrage”, “deplore”, “appalling acts of violence”, “strongly condemn”, “carnage”, “slaughter”, “appalled”, and I could go on. These words were also used in relation to previous genocides in our history.

The Armenian genocide occurred in 1915. I am proud of our government's record in recognizing that as a genocide. Unfortunately, recognizing it after the fact had little impact, did very little to support the Armenian people as they walked through that tragedy.

Could the member tell me why we would wait until 50 or 100 years from now to label this as a genocide when we have the opportunity to do it today? I agree that simply labelling it is not going to change the facts unless the Liberal government would be willing to add to the word “genocide”, action which follows up.

The Liberal government has not yet given us one coherent reason as to why it pulled our CF-18s out of the mission in Iraq and Syria. If I could have my colleague explain one coherent reason why we did that, I would be better served.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that words do matter. In the very example he cited, the Armenian genocide was recognized as a genocide only after a thorough investigation. I will take it as a given that my colleague will support the Minister of Foreign Affairs' intervention, asking the UN Security Council to initiate an investigation with a view to determining whether the very things that we are talking about are genocide.

On the other point he raised, I do not know whether the hon. member recognizes that we are part of a coalition. A coalition, by definition, means that various people and entities in the coalition do different things. We had over 200 airplanes in the theatre of conflict. Where we were lacking was in the intelligence, assist, and advise mission. Canada said it would stop providing the jets, but we will step up with respect to the intelligence, assist, and advise mission.

We should ask ourselves what would be more effective: what the hon. member is most concerned about, namely, these atrocities; or having real intelligence capabilities that would facilitate the rooting out of this scourge by the indigenous forces that must lead the fight.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about atrocities, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed in Iraq and Syria, and we want to put a stop to it. The federal government announced funding of $1.2 million over one year to investigate such activities and to restore some justice.

This investment has expired. What does the current federal government plan on doing to continue investigating these war crimes and crimes against humanity and to ensure that international legal action will eventually be taken?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of a good debate, I should respond in a more fulsome fashion to a specific question with respect to the continuation of those monies. I expect that has happened. I expect that we have contributed to the continuing investigation, because as I said in my response to the previous question, words matter, investigations matter, and evidence matters.

If we look at the Balkan wars, a lot of investigation went on. There were a lot of bodies exhumed and a lot of evidence taken before a procedure was initiated under the crimes against humanity legislation. Words matter and evidence matters. I hope that my response, in a more fulsome way to you, is that we are continuing to contribute to that investigation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we resume debate, I want to remind hon. members to speak through the Chair and not directly to members on the other side.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge.

On the relationship between peace and justice, there is a theoretical tension between these two. The pursuit of peace may on certain readings in certain situations require us to let go of things we would rather address, to allow to pass by things which we would rather confront but the confrontation of which would lead to a loss of peace.

On the other hand, the pursuit of justice may put us in conflict with others, with the purveyors of injustice and with those who, while desiring justice of a certain kind, have a different conception of justice than we do. When peace is valued over justice, we are inclined to leave injustice unaddressed. When justice is valued over peace, we risk regular conflict even between those with good intentions on the basis of rival conceptions of justice.

I do not just mean military conflict in the context of loss of peace but also conflict as in a disruption of favour and goodwill, and perhaps conflict in terms of being opposed in our ambitions. The pursuit of justice always upsets the tranquillity of life, in this context, the relative potential tranquillity of Canadian international diplomatic relations.

During our previous Conservative government we regularly put the pursuit of justice ahead of tranquillity in international relations. We stood for what was and is right. We stood for the rights of persecuted religious, ethnic, and linguistic minorities. We stood for the right of self-determination for any peaceful community. We stood for the right of the Jewish people to a safe and secure homeland. We stood for the right of the Russian people to know that human rights abusers from their country will not be able to travel to and invest in the west. We stood for the rights of Chinese Uighurs, Afghani Sikhs, Crimean Tatars, and yes, Yazidis, Christians, Kurds, Turkmen, Shia Muslims, and other groups in the path of Daesh.

We were willing to stand up and upset our tranquillity in the process. We believed that a country in pursuit of justice might have to pay a price for its stand, but that it was right that we be prepared to pay that price.

This government has a fundamentally different approach when it comes to foreign affairs. While we believed and believe deeply in the pursuit of justice, this government values peace, values tranquillity, over justice. The Liberals are not prepared to speak clearly about international human rights. They are downgrading our capacities in this respect and they are refusing to speak the truth about injustice. In this particular case, they are refusing to call a genocide what it is.

Now many of my colleagues have already spoken eloquently about why using the term genocide is not only justified, but is necessary in the case of Daesh actions towards Yazidis and Christians in Syria and Iraq.

The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Any one of these conditions is a sufficient basis to qualify as genocide, but there is clear, documented evidence that Daesh has engaged in all five of these things. That is why the American administration, the American Congress, the British Parliament, and the European Parliament have all recognized this as a genocide. Are we to seriously believe that our Minister of Foreign Affairs is wiser or happens to know something these august bodies do not?

The best that the Liberals can come up with in opposition to this is to assert that our membership in the International Criminal Court in some way prevents us from calling this a genocide.

The only thing worse than using legalese to cover moral cowardice is using bad, ill-informed, made-up legalese to cover moral cowardice. Every single EU country is a member of the ICC. They have all recognized the genocide through a motion very similar to this. The parliamentary secretary said it was just a motion in the European context. This is a motion as well, and our recognition of genocide should not be and need not be held up by a Security Council veto.

These arguments are obviously not the point. The evidence is clear and international law is clear with respect to what genocide is. We know it is clear, they know it is clear, and we know that they know it is clear. However, they still will not use the word “genocide”, quite obviously because there is a certain safety, a certain comfort, a certain tranquillity, in resisting taking a stand and holding back on the call for justice; because using the word “genocide” upsets our peace. It is a disruptive word because it crystalizes and clarifies the truly evil nature of Daesh and our moral and legal obligation to respond in a serious way. The government prefers similar but sufficiently unclear language in this, so as to appear to be roughly on the same page but not to upset the Liberals' desired foreign-policy focus of peace and tranquillity as opposed to the pursuit of justice.

Why is it necessary to speak the truth in this case? Why is it necessary to call a genocide a genocide? Why do we take the denial of genocides, historic or present, so seriously? I have spoken before in the House about my grandmother's story. My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, one of millions of European Jews who suffered in some way because of Hitler's efforts to exterminate them.

On August 22, 1939, about a week before the invasion of Poland, Hitler gave what has come to be known as the Obersalzberg speech to his military commanders, in which he laid out his genocidal intent, in this case toward the Polish people. For our understanding of history, of how and why genocides happen, it is important to know what he said:

...our war aim does not consist of reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness...with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space...we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

In this seminal address to his commanders, it was important for Hitler to reflect on the absence of international recognition or regard for the Armenian genocide. This was not the first time that Hitler invoked a comparison between the Armenian genocide and his intended plans. He inferred from the experience of the Armenians that nobody would care if he killed the Jews.

When we stand in the House to remember and recognize the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Holodomor, and other such events, we are not just engaging in a collective exercise in the study of history. We are remembering because reminding ourselves of the reality of past evil, ensuring that violence against the innocent is condemned over and over again in the strongest possible terms, is a way of ensuring that we finally learn the lessons of history. As much as it upsets our tranquillity from time to time to call out evil, in the past or the present, it must be done. What good is remembering the past if we only pay attention to genocides that happened decades ago? The failure to confront evil in the present is precisely what leads tyrants in the future to conclude that their contemporaries will not care either. To call out evil, to speak the truth about international human rights, to do so in a way that is clear and unambiguous may cost us friends and goodwill; it may cost us more still. However, it is the only thing that prevents would-be tyrants of this world from believing that they will get away with it.

On the relationship between peace and justice, there is, yes, a theoretical tension between the two, but there is also an essential unity between the two. Those who violate the basic rights and dignity of their own people invariably become a menace to their neighbours and the entire community of civilized nations, as Daesh has already become. It is not in the nature of tyrants to, on the one hand, overthrow the domestic rule of law and then to respect international law, on the other. It is a certainty that those who are a menace to justice in their own land will be a menace to peace, if not right away then eventually. Even on consequential grounds, it makes sense to stand up for justice in the first instance, but more important, we cannot call ourselves a just society if we refuse to speak clearly about justice on the international stage.

That is justice in the pursuit of peace, and justice that is disruptive to peace, because the 19 Yazidi girls who were burned alive in a cage this week are every bit as human as the members here or my daughter or their daughters. If members would call it a genocide for themselves or their people group, then they should do it for someone else's.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to Conservatives speak on this issue, l wonder why they have chosen now to preach to us about the action we should take as government. The parliamentary secretary explained Canada's position quite well. I recommend the member read what the parliamentary secretary. It was well articulated.

If the member and his colleagues feel so passionate about this today, why did the former Conservative prime minister not ask for any sort of a motion, or did not take an official statement from the Government of Canada nine months ago when he was prime minister? The degree in which the Conservatives want to push this issue surprises me.

I do not in any fashion want to try to demean the horrific acts that have taken place under ISIS. I think it is universally felt across Canada. Every Canadian recognizes just how horrific these are. We are going through a process that will eventually come out with a final product that will be very close to, if not exactly, what the opposition going for. However, there is a process that needs to be followed.

When the member's leader was prime minister, he was content with that process. What has changed?

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

Mr. Speaker, with greatest respect to the member, there are so many things he said that are just not true. I was here for the parliamentary secretary's speech. I asked her a question. The argument she rests on is this supposed ICC process, without appreciating the fact that every member of the European Union is also a signatory to the International Criminal Court and they have all had no problem agreeing, through the European parliament, to recognize this as a genocide. This is not a process that any other country seems to feel is absolutely required before declaring this a genocide. This is a process that the Liberal government has created as cover because it does not want to call it a genocide for whatever reason.

The previous prime minister did call this a genocide. A motion in the House was not necessary because it was well understood and repeatedly communicated by the Canadian government. When we took power, I remember repeatedly asking members of the government questions about whether it recognized this as a genocide. This was during the debate we had about involvement in Daesh. We earlier sought a unanimous consent motion, and now we have this opposition day motion today.

We repeatedly raised this issue when we were in government and now in this Parliament, and I think the record will show that. Why are we pushing this issue? Why does this matter? Why do words matter? Words matter and words are important. That is why we take the denial of genocide in other cases so seriously because recognizing the reality of genocide is how we respond to them. It is the first necessary step to respond to them. It is why it is so important to the Yazidi community that we recognize genocide because it understands that is a necessary step to condemning genocide there and everywhere. It is a necessary part of the response that we use words correctly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I call for new questions, I want to remind the hon. members that while you are responding or even asking your question, if you do not mind looking up to the chair once in a while. If you see me signal, please wrap it up. The answers and the questions are getting kind of long and we do want to have as many people as possible speak. We are talking about fairness today and that would be a small way of moving toward fairness.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's speech. I want to concentrate on part (c) of the motion where it states, “targeting gays and lesbians who have been tortured and murdered; and, as a consequence, that the House strongly condemn these atrocities...”. In light of this specific motion, one of the problems I have had with Parliament is that we inconsistently apply our moral outrage.

In light of this specific wording, I wanted to bring to the member's attention that the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, which the Conservatives strongly support, includes the Sultanate of Brunei. In 2014 Brunei passed a law which advocated the stoning of gays and lesbians.

I would like to hear the member's opinion on that in light of this motion. Should we not at least be consistent in applying our moral outrage? Why should we reward that country with trade with Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly share the member's concerns, specifically with respect to human rights issues in Brunei. There are issues of discrimination toward gays and lesbians as well as significant religious freedom issues.

How we may be able to bring about improvements to human rights issues through trade agreements is a separate question. We have a bit of a disagreement with the NDP in terms of the potential positive effects of certain kinds of engagement on human rights. However, it is important that we have clear and consistent all through that process in communicating about human rights. We need to do that with respect to Brunei and a range of other countries.

I thank the member for raising the issue of Brunei because it is one of those countries that does not get the attention it deserves. However, there are significant human rights issues—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a significant measure of urgency, combined with a degree of perplexity, that I stand before the House today and ask the government to take a stand for human rights.

The urgency comes from a place of care and compassion for tens of thousands of innocent Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims in Syria and Iraq who are being abducted, tortured, raped, and turned into slaves or killed at the hands of ISIS.

The degree of perplexity of which I speak is in response to the government's lack of willingness to call these crimes what they are. The atrocities committed by ISIS are genocide. Today, we call on the government to join with the U.S. and our allies in the U.K. and to declare that these crimes do in fact constitute genocide.

Those of us who sit in the House are free people. This chamber hosts 338 remarkable men and women who come from all walks of life. Many have had to overcome difficult situations. Others have been blessed with good fortune. However, all of us embody a story, a story of stewarding our freedom, the freedom that was granted to us simply because we were born or became Canadian citizens, freedom to dream and have hope for a vibrant future, freedom to go to school and acquire an education and training, freedom to work and earn a living, freedom to make purchases, freedom to enjoy recreational activities, freedom to worship, freedom to speak about our beliefs and our values, freedom to move from one province or territory to another, and freedom to run for public office to become members of Parliament and sit in this chamber. As residents of Canada and members of the House, we are incredibly blessed. We are among the world's most privileged.

I am confident that each of my colleagues, myself included, ran for public office because we believed that we could make a difference, because we wanted to contribute to make Canada better, a better Canada domestically and on the world stage. However, what I find is that the four walls of this chamber sometimes have a detrimental side effect for those of us who reside in this place. In the short time I have been here I have become increasingly aware of the amnesia that sets in when we neglect to look beyond the ideals and the theory of this assembly room and into the space beyond these walls called reality.

Beyond these walls and across the ocean there exists a very different reality for tens of thousands of innocent Yazidis, Christians, and other ethnic and religious minority groups. In their reality, there are no plush green chairs, cheese platters, or mineral water. For this group, reality looks like living in fear, fighting for survival, men and women being abducted, men being lined up and shot to death in front of their loved ones, women and girls being captured, tortured, raped, and sold into slavery. In their reality, they are no more than a commodity on a black market.

Young virgins, some as young as nine, are a prized possession and sold for a price well above the average rate, determined by the powers that be within this lucrative and criminal world of commerce. Meanwhile, those who are pregnant will be killed or subjected to barbaric and excruciatingly painful abortions.

This is but a small glimpse into the real life situation faced by tens of thousands of innocent men and women in Syria and Iraq who find themselves at the mercy of ISIS. Rape is being used as a weapon of war. Torture is the daily norm. Of course, death is the only foreseeable escape route.

Meanwhile, Canada's present government appears to be undisturbed, content to sit on its hands and do nothing of significant meaning.

Just a few days ago, 19 Yazidi girls were marched through the public square in Mosul and forced into an iron cage where they were burned alive for refusing to have sex with the ISIS soldiers. Hundreds of people watched as this atrocious human rights violation took place. No one could do anything.

This is the reality beyond the four walls of this chamber and across the ocean in a not-so-distant place called Iraq and Syria. This is the reality that I call upon Canada's government to acknowledge as genocide.

I call upon the government to do so because it is the definition that goes along with the wrongful practice that we are witnessing. The crimes that I speak of are crimes against humanity for the purpose of extinguishing a group of people.

Dr. Widad Akreyi who works for Defend International has called upon the international community to call these grave atrocities what they are: crimes against humanity, crimes against cultural heritage of the region, and ethnic cleansing.

One survivor who was interviewed had this to say, "If we're not protected soon, there'll be none of us left in the country--which is our country...“

On December 9, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly, within the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defined genocide as:

....any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Based on this convention, which bears Canada's signature, I call upon the upon the Canadian government to acknowledge the brutal acts committed by ISIS as genocide.

For over two years now, the persecution of minority groups, such as Christians, Yazidis, and Shia Muslims has gained international attention, starting with the U.S.-led air strikes against ISIS. Iran was close at hand. Shortly thereafter, 14 countries, including Canada, joined together in a U.S.-led coalition to execute air strikes on ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

When Canada's new government took power, however, efforts were significantly thwarted. For the most part, a blind eye was turned to those who are being persecuted at the hands of ISIS. I am perplexed as to why our Prime Minister will not join with those in the European Union and the United States of America to declare these acts for what they are.

In 1948, we joined our allies to legally define genocide for a reason, that we would be empowered to take action, action that defends freedom and acknowledges the value of human life. I would speculate that the current government is refusing to define these horrific human rights violations as genocide because doing so will require it to take action. It viewed the decision at hand as an unwelcome obligation rather than an opportunity to take a stand for the most vulnerable and defend human rights.

The matter of which I speak today is not to be taken lightly. In Syria and Iraq, tens of thousands of Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities are living in incomprehensible fear. These are the people that would consider themselves fortunate. Others have been slaughtered, and still others have been kidnapped, tortured, and raped.

These are crimes against humanity committed by the hands of Islamic State militants for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. The wicked acts committed by ISIS are deliberate in nature and calculatedly committed against specific religious and minority groups.

What I have described today is in fact genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I thereby call upon the government to join with our allies and recognize the atrocities committed by ISIS as genocide, and to take action to prevent those who are responsible.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her remarks, in particular at the outset when she summarized what I think every member of this House would agree is completely abhorrent behaviour on the part of ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, however one may refer to this terrorist group.

She indicated we need to call it what it is so we can take action, but I would submit that we are already taking significant action as part of an international coalition that is doing very positive work overseas.

What I would ask the hon. member is, does she not see that a contribution on the legal side, by following the legal definition of genocide through the international community, will also have a positive impact by co-operating with groups like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, this combination of the legal and militaristic options that we could pursue?

Does the member not see the benefit to working with the international legal framework to pursue a resolution?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to disagree with the member in terms of the actions of the Liberal government. In fact, the government has not taken action. It has actually withdrawn our combat forces from Iraq and Syria, thereby diminishing our effectiveness and ability to fight for the human rights that we value.

Furthermore, with regard to the ICC process, I would again urge the member opposite to consider the fact that every single EU country has signed on in calling this a genocide. The United States of America has declared this a genocide. There is absolutely no reason why Canada should not take leadership on the world stage and do the same.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that all members of this House will agree that the astoundingly barbaric acts and horrors that Daesh has committed against religious minorities have reached epic proportions. Yes, the Conservative motion is correct. Yezidis, Syrian Christians, and even Muslims are suffering and dying at the hands of Daesh, and that includes many Syrian Christians of Armenian origin who are the children and grandchildren of victims of another genocide.

Does the member not think that it would have been better if the Conservative motion had also made reference to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Bashar al-Assad's criminal regime?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there are many atrocities being committed against humans all around the globe, and each and every one of deserves acknowledgement.

Today, in the House, we are taking time to acknowledge those who are at the hands of ISIS within Iraq and Syria. We are taking a stand for minority groups that are minorities because of their ethnic backgrounds, as well as their religious backgrounds and their lifestyle decisions. We are taking a stand for them in the House today by calling on the government to call the acts committed by ISIS genocide. We call it genocide because that is what it is defined as by the UN in the declaration that Canada signed in 1948.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just as my colleague stated, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Canada signed as a signatory on that document. It states very clearly that we are required to prevent and punish actions of genocide. I would like my colleague to speak to our obligation and duty to protect these people.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada did, in fact, sign this convention in 1948 and we are, therefore, bound by this convention. It would seem reasonable, then, that we should be taking a stance for the individuals who are having these crimes committed against them, first to prevent the crimes and, second, to punish those who are committing them.

On the side of prevention, it starts by defining these acts for what they are, which, again, is what we are calling upon the House to do today.