Debates of Sept. 29th, 2016

Opposition Motion--Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports Review

[An hon. member]

Or to Saudi Arabia.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

They could travel to Saudi Arabia. That is a very good point. Maybe they will travel to Saudi Arabia to see exactly how it does its arms trade business.

We heard from the members for Thornhill and Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that the Liberals actually voted down the creation of a subcommittee that would have studied this issue. It would have started immediately. The great thing about subcommittees is that they feed back to the committee level, which could have decided at the end of the day what the next steps were, whether a report should be written, whether the government should take further steps, and make recommendations to the government. That could have been done at that committee level. That is committees' duty and area of responsibility assigned to them by the House.

It almost feels like something out of a Yes Minister episode. I feel as if Sir Humphrey Appleby would be quite proud of the obfuscation and sideshow the Liberals have put on so far, talking about human rights, how important the arms trade business is, and how important all of these jobs are, well-paying middle-class manufacturing jobs. It is something I have heard repeatedly over and over today. It is a complete denial.

What about the pipeline jobs? What about the oil and gas jobs back home where I live in Calgary, Alberta? I never hear anybody on that side say they care about those jobs. Every community in my riding has a Facebook page, where people post things they are selling. Early on in the downturn, they were starting to sell the spare cars they had, the Ski-doos they had, maybe the RVs they had. Now I am seeing pictures of people selling their engagement rings because they cannot make ends meet. I never hear anything about them. What about their well-paying middle-class jobs in the oil and gas sector?

Where are they on that issue? Where are they debating that? Where are they caring about those people? I never hear that. There is never a mention of an Alberta energy worker. All we hear is this stereotype.

Bernard came here to Parliament Hill in person to plead the case of the energy workers. The guy actually works near Grande Prairie, in the oil patch. He relies on that well-paying middle-class job, but we never hear anything about it. However, that is not so when it comes to the arms business.

My father was a defence contractor for 35 years in this country. He worked at the Sorel shipyards. He was a shipyard worker in Poland, and when he came to Canada, he continued building ships for as long as he possibly could. When the Sorel shipyard was shut down, he became a defence contractor. That was the field he worked in, and so it is a business I know really well. It is a business that gave my dad a great middle-class job.

The Liberals are very defensive on this, but they are defensive for all the wrong reasons. They are defensive because they do not really have a record to defend on jobs, because they have not really created any jobs.

The matter before us is whether to create another standing committee, and that is what we should be debating. Do we need another standing committee of the House to look at an issue?

As I have told the New Democrats I have talked to, informally and in debate, I just do not believe that this committee is necessary. However, I do think that the Liberals made a mistake at the committee level, and they should have accepted the creation of a subcommittee, which was the proper area to have this. It is where they should have had this policy to debate, and they could have called witnesses. They could have called for specialists in the field to come to the committee to explain to them what to do, what type of human rights restrictions there were, and what type of issues should be studied further. That could be done, again, at the committee level.

There are several parts of the motion that I agree with, that Conservatives in general have mentioned that they agree with; and Canadians, I think, would agree too. The motion mentions that we expect a high standard from the government to continue to protect human rights abroad, which is fine. I agree with that.

There is a lot of good wording in the motion; it is just the standing committee concept that I think is wholly unnecessary. Again, we support establishing and maintaining international standards that would prevent arms transfers fuelling conflicts and supporting organized crime or, worse, terrorism. These are all concepts with which we, in principle, agree. The question is on the correct procedure. Where should we be having the discussions?

I think it is really unfortunate, because this could have been avoided if the Liberal members on that committee had just said yes to the subcommittee. We could have started this study right then.

Any member here could have sent a letter to the chair of that subcommittee and asked it to look at certain issues, and then suggested the witnesses. I have done it before. I have sent letters to chairs of committees suggesting areas of study. I have done it, and sometimes I have constituents who email me or send me letters to say they think something is a policy issue. I am not a full member of a committee, but I will still write to the committee chair to say that a constituent believes that a certain issue is worthy of study and I would like that taken under consideration.

Those are all worthy procedural, mechanical ways of doing the business of Parliament, of getting the ball rolling and getting studies undertaken.

It has been mentioned a few times before that there are end-user contracts. This is something with which I have a little bit of familiarity. Again, my father used to deal with defence contractors and was a defence contractor himself. However, we could have studied that. We could have actually asked if end-user contracts are appropriate. Do they work; do they function in all instances; should they be beefed up; should they be abandoned in favour of another model or mechanism to control how certain equipment is used by different countries, by our allies, by those who are maybe reselling them on a secondary market?

The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is correct that there is a need for Canadians, through Parliament, to oversee current and future arms sales. However, the foreign affairs committee already has the authority, as has been mentioned, to look at these issues. The Liberals have said this too, and it is a point that I do agree with.

However, the Liberals on that committee should have been the ones to say yes to a study and give it to a subcommittee of its members to look into it. That is where they could have done it. I am not of the view of establishing an entirely new committee.

I sat on the pay equity committee. I contributed to that debate and had fulsome discussions on it. However, I just do not think that a new committee devoted solely to a single, specific issue is a wise use of the resources of Parliament. I think it unnecessary to have a single-issue committee. I would much rather see it dealt with in a committee like foreign affairs with a subcommittee. I believe that is the best way to do it.

I will be voting against the motion, just on the principle of having a standing committee. It is admirable that they are trying to push the issue to have greater transparency on it.

I see my time has run out. I will yield to the chair.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the issue of arms exports goes far beyond the mandate of any one of the existing committees of the House. It could fall under the foreign affairs and international development committee, the defence committee, the trade committee, the industry committee, the labour committee, or the human rights committee. An in-depth study of these issues is important.

His main argument has to do with parliamentary resources. We know that the main resources needed for a committee to operate are human resources. We need to pay clerks and analysts. He is proposing that a subcommittee be formed instead. My question is very simple: will that subcommittee operate without a clerk or an analyst?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

All the committees and the subcommittees work with clerks. However, we know that standing committees use far more resources in terms of time, money, and organization than subcommittees. I have seen members of subcommittees hold informal meetings on several occasions. The clerk in charge of the committee does not always have to be there and neither does the chief analyst.

In any event, again, I find that we could make better use of Parliament's resources than forming another standing committee. That is what subcommittees are for.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I appreciated today was that at the very least the Conservatives have recognized, as we have in government, the importance of the defence industry as a whole. Close to 20,000 jobs for the hard-working middle class are directly related to the defence industry. We understand the importance of that industry.

I was a bit baffled when the member referred to pipelines and oil industry. I am from the Prairies, and I can assure members that we in the Liberal caucus, and indeed our Prime Minister, have been fighting for that industry. In fact, in 10 years, the former Conservative government could not even get one inch of a pipeline to tidewater. That is something that people on the Prairies will not forget.

The difference seems to be that the NDP want to have a special committee and the Conservatives want a subcommittee of the foreign affairs committee. Does the member not recognize that the foreign affairs committee already has that within itself? It is already created. The committee has already said that it is going to study the issue. Is he not confident that his own members can deal with it at that level? Why not allow the foreign affairs committee to deal with it as a full committee, and after it has done its consultations and so forth, if it then decides to recommend a subcommittee that would be more ongoing, then maybe consider it? Why does the member not have confidence in his own colleagues on the foreign affairs committee?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a motion put forward in that committee to create a subcommittee. He should ask his colleagues why they voted against it. That matter was solved there.

Talking about jobs, what about Air Canada jobs? We saw a bill earlier in the session that will probably cost Air Canada jobs Winnipeg. Is that not right?

Speaking about the Liberal record on jobs, what about the lack of business confidence it is causing people back in Alberta. Countless business people keep calling my office to say that they are not sure if they are going to stay open for another two, four, or six months, because they are not sure where the government is going with its $30 billion deficit, the higher taxes coming down, including higher payroll taxes and a new carbon tax. That isn't exactly what the people in Alberta want, a provincial carbon tax, a federal carbon tax, higher payroll taxes, a $30-billion deficit, and $100 billion in the first term of this government. There is nothing for Alberta energy workers except debt and bankruptcy. The Liberals have nothing to speak to in terms of their record on jobs.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to our motion calling for transparency from the current government. This motion is rooted in our deep concern and that of many Canadians when it comes to our country's arms exports.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, for her work on this front and her broader work on human rights.

We rise in the House every day to speak about issues of great importance. Before us is literally an issue of life and death and our role as a country on this front. While today's motion focuses on the need to strike a committee calling for greater transparency of our arms exports, we in the NDP are proud to stand up against a regressive warmongering agenda that we see continued by the current government.

First, I will provide some background. As it stands today, Canada is now the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and China are among the top 10 destinations for Canadian military goods. This is according to the Department of Global Affairs' report from 2015. We are of course aware of the fact that reports over the past year have also indicated that Canadian sales of military-related equipment have increased to countries with poor human rights records.

Saudi Arabia, according to Freedom House, is one of the worst of the worsts when it comes to human rights. We know that Canada agreed to a $15 billion deal for light armoured vehicles between Saudi Arabia and Canada's General Dynamics. This is the largest arms trade deal in Canadian history. We also know that our arms sales to China have soared to $48 million. Reports have also indicated that Canadian-made weaponry has been used in the Saudi Arabian-led war in Yemen, where over 6,000 people have been killed and one of the world's worst humanitarian situations continues to deteriorate.

Cesar Jaramillo from Project Ploughshares told us that Canadians should be worried. He talked about how Canada addressed the UN Security Council and highlighted the importance of protecting civilians in conflict zones. He noted that it is civilians who are most often at risk as a result of arms dealings, in particular with regions engulfed in conflict and notorious for their poor human rights records. Mr. Jaramillo, like many others from the not-for-profit sector and others who are interested in peace, has indicated that Canada's actions simply do not reflect the kind of rhetoric we have heard.

Peggy Mason, who once served as Canada's United Nations ambassador for disarmament, has said “it’s hard to justify Canadian weapons exports to any Mideast country”. She note that “It has been a bedrock principle of Canadian export...policy…that Canadian arms exports would not contravene international law including UN arms embargoes, [and] would not contribute to undermine international peace and security”. Once again, the rhetoric of the current government does not match its actions.

Canadians do not agree with the current government's ramping up of support for arms deals like the ones I have referred to. In fact, polls show that most Canadians disapprove of arms deals with human rights abusers. Now it is true that the deal with Saudi Arabia was signed under the previous government. However, we know that the current government has not changed that approach. So much for the slogan of real change.

As we have seen in the House today, there is no question that the discussion around arms exports involves a very important discussion of jobs. This is a key point because Canadians are facing increasing unemployment. Our unemployment rate has crept up to 7%. Our job growth is essentially flat. Compared to 12 months ago, the economy has added just 77,400 jobs. During this time, 35,700 full-time jobs have been lost. Those 113,000 jobs that have been added are part-time positions. It is clear that the ongoing trend of full-time jobs being replaced by part-time employment is a cause for major concern amongst Canadians.

Now, when we talk about unemployment, I do not have to look past my own home of northern Manitoba to see that grim reality. In addition to the many first nations that experience extremely high rates of unemployment, we know from the experience of this last summer that it has been a difficult time for our region in terms of jobs, with the closure of the port of Churchill, the announcement of the closing of the mill in The Pas, the dismantling of the East Side Road Authority, and the insecurity that surrounds our value-added jobs associated with mining.

The reality of rising unemployment is grim. It is grim where I am. It is increasingly grim across the country. It is particularly grim when you apply a generational lens. My generation, the millennial generation, is facing an increasingly difficult reality when it comes to jobs. In fact, the unemployment rate amongst young workers in Canada is double the national rate, at over 13%. A growing number of young workers are in temporary work. Many are calling this an emerging crisis.

I am proud of our NDP initiative to hear from millennials about the rise of precarious work, the rise of contract work, the rise of temporary work, jobs that have no benefits and no pensions. What I hear time and time again from young people across our country, from Halifax to Vancouver, from Whitehorse to Toronto, is that they want access to good jobs.

Where is the federal government when it comes to the discussion of good jobs? My answer is that I am not really sure. There has been no leadership when it comes to creating a robust, sustainable job creation strategy across our country. Instead, it has been a policy of inaction, misdirection, and, frankly, the threat of future job losses.

In regions like mine, the federal government is sitting by while people in industry after industry lose their jobs. In places like B.C., we saw the federal government approving the Petronas LNG deal, running roughshod over first nations' rights, and failing to invest in the green economy, in sustainable green jobs.

All the while, the government has been looking to ratify the TPP, a trade deal that will further erode good jobs in our country to the tune of at least 35,000 jobs. This is not the sign of a government that is looking out for Canadian workers and their jobs. To say that somehow arms deals and arms exports will save us is simply not the case.

The second point is one of values. The Prime Minister and his government have made it clear that they want to turn a new page when it comes to values. Granted, we had 10 years of a government that practised the worst kind of fear-based politics, a politics of division. Many Canadians sought a positive, progressive vision in the last election. Many believed in the slogan of real change put forward by the government.

Since that election, we have seen the Prime Minister speak of his feminism and the importance of a feminist approach. Sadly, the government's support of such arms deals is neither real change nor a reflection of feminist politics. It is not feminist to sell arms to countries that have appalling human rights records, to states that regularly abuse the rights of women. It is not feminist to sell arms to countries that execute people because they are gay or members of the LGBTQ community. Many women and men across Canada want to see the government live up to the values it espouses.

Ultimately, the government ran on a platform of increased transparency and accountability, and that is exactly what the motion aims to do. In an area as important as manufacturing and the export of arms, this motion is critical. It is about doing what is right. It is about truly standing up for human rights and feminist politics. It is about standing up with a vision for good Canadian jobs. It is about standing up for good Canadian values.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two issues in the motion that I want to quickly address. One is the Saudi Arabia agreement. It is interesting that during the last election, the NDP, and its leader in particular, had no problem whatsoever talking about the value of these jobs, which the member seems to want to criticize. He indicated that “You don't cancel a commercial accord retroactively, it's just not done”.

The New Democratic member for London—Fanshawe was even stronger. She said, “So yes, he is very aware”, referring to their leader, “and that's why he was very clear in the debate that we would honour the contract, we don't renege on contracts. It's a signed contract and we will honour that contract”.

My question for the member is very specific. Has the NDP changed its position with regard to Saudi Arabia? It seems that this is the case, and while the member is answering that question, could she tell me whether there are other standing committees the NDP would like to create beyond this one?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that the Liberal member, along with many Liberal members, loves to live in the past of the last federal election. If he had continued to read news that has come up based on this exact discussion, he would know that the NDP has been very clear and has called for the suspension of that deal and for looking into exactly how these arms are being used. Obviously we have all been made aware of very disturbing information about the way these arms are being used in the conflict in Yemen.

I appreciate that the Liberals cannot always handle the facts and certainly like to use very positive-sounding rhetoric, but the government is continuing the policies of the previous government when it comes to arms exports. This is something that increasingly Canadians find to be unacceptable. We are asking for real leadership on something as fundamental as transparency.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know that this issue is important to her. I especially appreciated her comments on the issue of Canadian values at the end of her speech.

I would like to come back to the comments on an open and transparent government. Given the number of challenges surrounding the issue of arms sales and the need for constant monitoring of what is being done exactly, I would ask my colleague if she understands why the Liberals, who claim to be open and transparent, are refusing to create a special committee to address these issues on an ongoing basis.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague for her efforts on this issue and for fighting for human rights day after day.

The issue is why the Liberals are refusing to support this motion. It really is a fundamental issue. We wonder why the federal government is opposing transparency and accountability. Those are the values that the Liberals championed during the election. They bring them up in the House of Commons.

Yes, this debate in the House is about an issue that is very important and very serious. We are proposing that a committee be created to ensure transparency and respect for human rights. We really are wondering why the Liberals are refusing to create this committee. I am certain that Canadians are increasingly wondering about that, given what this government is doing.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my remarks based on my personal experience working in zones of conflict, where the important question was often where the arms hitting that conflict were coming from, arms that made the job of human rights observers more difficult and more dangerous, and arms that made the job of humanitarian aid workers greater as each day passed and more dangerous as each day passed.

For me, effective control of arms exports is not just a theoretical question.

There was the arming of the pro-Indonesian militias in East Timor, in 1999, when I was there as co-chair of the human rights observer mission for the UN referendum, and we saw the murder of more than 1,500 people after the vote for independence. Where did those arms come from? It is a question that has never really been answered.

There was Ambon, where I worked in 2000 and 2001 for the international migration commission, trying to do peace-building work between Christians and Muslims, where outside interests were clearly fuelling the conflict with both arms of a sophisticated nature and explosives.

There was the Taliban in Afghanistan, where I worked in 2000, who have continued, over a decade, to be armed by murky sources.

Finally, there were the rebels in Muslim Mindanao, where I worked in 2010 as an election observer and where people were killed at the poll I was observing.

We have seen, in Muslim Mindanao, rebel groups using kidnapping and beheading as a tactic, not just to win their conflict, but much more specifically, to raise money to purchase arms illegally on the world market.

Therefore, it is harder for me to dismiss the concern about what happens to arms exports when they leave Canada, when we know people who have actually died as a result of the uncontrolled arms trade.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not making a passivist argument here about the need to do away with all arms. Arms are needed for defence, and there is nothing wrong with arms exports that are done in an open, transparent, and responsible manner. That is exactly what the proposal we have before us would help us do.

The motion to create an arms export review committee would enhance Canada's international reputation, but it would also enhance our own ability to make sure that our impact in the world is a positive one and that it is not inadvertently, or through lack of care, contributing to the conflicts around the world, which end up producing not just death and destruction locally but waves of refugees around the world.

Why have such a committee? I have heard arguments today from the Conservatives about how we need a subcommittee rather than a committee, so they are going to vote against this. It seems, with all respect, a very specious argument. A subcommittee is staffed in the same way a committee is staffed, and the only thing that is really different is that normally we have fewer members on a subcommittee. It is not really an argument about the substance of what we are talking about today.

I have heard many arguments from the other side about the foreign affairs committee. First of all, men who do not sit on the committee have explained to the one woman who sits on the committee that it is already doing this work, when it is clearly not, or that the committee could somehow do this work.

I would submit, with respect, that the foreign affairs committee has a fairly large task already. The foreign affairs committee is responsible for Canada's foreign relations with the entire world, so it does not have the time available on its agenda to do more than a one-off study, at most.

What this does, saying that the foreign affairs committee could do this work, is miss the positive example of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, where a very focused committee of the U.K. Commons is able to provide much more detailed scrutiny of arms exports and to do so over the long term and not just as a snapshot picture. It is a committee that has developed expertise and is therefore very valuable to the members of Parliament in the British House of Commons in allowing them to take responsibility for the arms that leave their shores.

As I say, the U.K. demonstrates the value of that focused committee with ongoing oversight over arms exports, as opposed to simply saying that the foreign affairs committee could look at this.

Yet another argument that was put forward by the Liberals earlier today was that they do not have to have a special committee to look at arms exports, because they will be introducing legislation to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and we can talk about this then. I would submit that it is exactly the opposite.

If we are going to join the Arms Trade Treaty soon, as the Liberals keep telling us, and I believe that is a good thing, then what better place to make sure we are observing our obligations under that treaty than having an arms export review committee. It proves to me exactly the opposite of the arguments that I have been hearing in the House.

There has always been a need for such a committee but that need has increased recently. Canada's arms exports have doubled over the past 10 years. That means we have an increased responsibility to make sure that what is happening with those arms exports is legal and that the end-users are responsible end-users. We have seen a shift in our arms exports. Where most of our exports used to go to NATO countries and other allies, we have now become the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East of all places.

I have a particular concern about our arms dealings with Saudi Arabia and I express those concerns on two grounds. Of course the obvious is the Saudis' own appalling human rights record and the very strong evidence now before us that Saudi arms have been and will likely continue to be used against its own civilians. Remember, this is a country where there are severe restrictions on the rights of women and where a gay man like me is subject to the death penalty.

In addition to the Saudis' own appalling human rights record, the Saudis have a record of exporting not just their extremist version of Islam but also arms that have been initially sold to them. These arms are mysteriously showing up in other conflicts and in particular there is disturbing evidence about the flow of arms through Saudi Arabia into the conflict in Yemen. Why have we become, as Canadians, one of the largest suppliers of arms to a country with this kind of appalling record?

I have particular concerns about the Saudi LAV vehicle deal. The Conservatives signed the deal and the Liberals signed the export permits, and yes, during the election the NDP said it thought we should keep the contract. The new evidence on the flow of weapons from Saudi Arabia to Yemen came out after the election campaign and the NDP has called for the suspension of this deal.

We also have additional evidence, which I find disturbing, that has not been really extensively covered here in the House. We have not really heard from the government on it. However, it is evidence that it is not just a private contract between a company and Saudi Arabia but the Canadian Armed Forces is actually engaged in assisting with trials of these vehicles and in training on the use of the vehicles. The other side likes to tell us it is just a business deal and we have to keep the contract, but it appears that it may be much more than that.

What about the workers? I hear “what about the workers” extensively from both the Conservatives and Liberals. I will try to stave off my sense of irony on hearing about the workers from parties that voted against anti-scab legislation.

If we are talking about the LAV vehicles, for instance, why not use those same facilities and those same companies to rebuild our own military vehicles? The example I use is that someone said to me that it was great the Canadian military brought heritage trucks to their parade, and I was able to reply that those are the only trucks we have and they are not museum specimens. The average age of vehicles in the Canadian military is over 40 years old, so if we are worried about workers in those factories and what we could do with those skills, I would submit we could put them to work building trucks for the Canadian military instead of building trucks for a human rights abuser and a country that may use them against its own citizens or pass them on to other conflicts.

I want to thank the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her great work on the foreign affairs committee in general and in particular on today's motion. I see something interesting in the motion. There is a great deal of research about peace and conflict resolution that shows that when women get involved in peace and conflict resolution, we achieve more success and quite often through very practical measures that reduce the negative impacts of conflict.

I see today's very motion as that, an example of a woman New Democrat from Laurier—Sainte-Marie who has stood up and said, here is something we can do to make the world a better place. Is that not what it should mean to say that Canada is back, that we are going to put ourselves to work, sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and monitor our exports to make sure they do not contribute to human rights abuses and that they do not contribute to further conflict around the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate we have learned a lot with respect to the New Democratic Party's position on the defence industry. It is an industry that we in the government appreciate and will ensure remains healthy. Its contributions to Canada's middle class are second to no other.

This is the second time the NDP has put forward a motion to establish a stand-alone standing committee. The Liberal government acknowledged that its first recommendation for a committee on pay equity was great. We advanced it and moved it forward. However, we disagree with this motion. We believe that the foreign affairs committee can deal with this.

Are there any other standing committees the NDP is thinking it would like to share with the House or are those the only two that we can anticipate?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist saying that I find that a hysterical reaction to what we are proposing. If there is an issue of concern, I will support creating a standing committee to deal with that issue of concern. I see no reason why we cannot have committees dealing with things that this Parliament wants to deal with in detail.

When we had the Special Committee on Pay Equity, it was not a standing committee. Rather, it was a special committee charged with doing a task. To me, the difference is that, in terms of pay equity, the government could get busy and solve that problem. The responsibility for examining arms exports is an ongoing responsibility of the House of Commons. That is why a standing committee would be the right vehicle to do this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 4, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it, you would find the consent of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 20 consideration of the motion.

TAMIL HERITAGE MONTH

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up debate on the motion, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre had seven minutes remaining in the time for her remarks. We will go to that now.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Motion No. 24 to recognize every January in Canada as Tamil heritage month. I will resume where I left off back in May.

Tamil Canadians are making a difference in all walks of Canadian life. They are the business owners who are creating jobs, the teachers who are helping guide our children into adulthood, the doctors and nurses who care for us when we are sick, the athletes whose exploits we follow with excitement on the cricket pitch, and the politicians who represent all of us at city councils, in the provincial legislatures, and I am proud to say here in the House. Members such as the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge Park are making a difference for all Canadians every day, and are doing us all proud.

The Tamil diaspora in Canada is estimated to be more than 300,000 people. The population has grown quickly from fewer than 150 in 1983. Theirs is a community that has faced tremendous challenges, and like so many others, have come to Canada as a land of opportunity and new beginnings. Like my family, and the families of so many of our fellow citizens, they came to Canada for the opportunity to build a better life for the next generation, their children and grandchildren, to live in peace and safety with their neighbours, and to work hard to provide for their families.

We are proud to have welcomed them to Canada. Canada has always been an open and welcoming country. We are welcoming Syrian refugees to Canada today. I hope that in 30 years we can look back and see that the Syrians we have welcomed into the Canadian family have made as important and meaningful a contribution to Canada as have our Tamil brothers and sisters.

It is time. Canadians owe much to the contributions of the Tamil community to our economic and social prosperity. I am proud to stand with my friend, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge Park, in support of making next January, and every January, Tamil heritage month.

Nandri.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park, to recognize the contributions the Tamil Canadians have made to Canadian society by declaring the month January every year as the Tamil heritage month.

The motion also calls for the recognition of the richness of the Tamil language and the culture, and the importance of educating and reflecting upon Tamil heritage for future generations.

As all members know, every January Tamils celebrate Thai Pongal, the harvest festival, when all over the world, the sun is being thanked for providing the energy for a wonderful harvest. In Canada we do something similar outside Tamil communities. I of course am referring to Thanksgiving coming up next weekend.

I am proud to stand with my Conservative caucus colleagues in support of Tamil Canadians, just like the former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney did in the 1980s, when under his leadership, Tamil resettlement commenced in 1983.

Over 300,000 Tamils since then were resettled in Canada, and our society is very enriched because of it. One example of Tamil hard work is the Uthayan newspaper in Scarborough, which is turning 21 years of publication this fall. I wish it many more years to come.

I have been dealing with the Tamil community in Canada and abroad for over a decade now as the parliament secretary for the minister of foreign affairs. I have first-hand knowledge of the struggle and the challenges they have had to deal with whether settling in Canada or recovering after the tsunami that ravaged Sri Lanka in 2005. I visited Sri Lanka with Prime Minister Martin and the late Jack Layton.

I remain impressed with the dedication and commitment of those involved in the reconstruction of the community affected by this natural disaster. Our DART did an exemplary job during this crisis.

I have also learned first hand of the Tamil spirit of engagement when it came to the transitional needs of internally displaced people, having visited one such camp in Vavuniya in 2009.

In November 2013, I represented former prime minister Stephen Harper at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Again, I took the opportunity to forcefully express my government's demand that Tamil rights be upheld by Sri Lankan authorities. During this visit, I laid a wreath at the northern outpost of Elephant Pass in memory of all civilians who died from Sri Lanka's 30 year long ethnic conflict. I also met the northern province chief minister and listened to his concerns on rehabilitation and rebuilding efforts by the Tamil people.

I have witnessed how close the Canadian Tamil connection has been for over 10 years during which I have been directly involved with this community.

The Canadian government, indifferent of its political colours, has been a friend to the Tamil people for over 30 years. This has been the case both during the plight of the Tamil refugees coming to Canada as well as for those who remained in Sri Lanka, to whom the Canadian government offered assistance with reconstruction and reconciliation to enable Sri Lankans to live in freedom and security.

Canada has been a faithful partner to the Tamil people abroad in the areas of human rights, the rule of law and promotion of democracy. At home, Canada's ethnocultural mosaic has been enriched with the accomplishment of the Tamil Canadians who have called Canada home from coast to coast to coast.

I would like to thank my colleague across the aisle for the important initiative. I look forward to celebrating the first Tamil heritage month in a little while.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the majority of Tamil people coming to Canada to make it home have arrived since 1983, Tamil people first began arriving here as early as 1948. Through these decades, the rich history and heritage of Tamil people has been a great contribution to Canada. Motion No. 24 asks the government to have these contributions and Tamil-Canadians' rich cultural heritage recognized by declaring January of every year Tamil heritage month.

I stand in the House today to voice my support for the motion. I am pleased that the Liberal member from Scarborough—Rouge Park has tabled the motion. This was something that the NDP previously brought to the House in 2013 through private member's Bill C-471, an act to designate the month of January Tamil Heritage month. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper following first reading. Therefore, I am pleased that the member opposite is taking up this cause and building upon that work.

January is the perfect month to recognize Tamil heritage, as one of the most important events, the Thai Pongal, the Tamil monsoon celebration, takes place in the middle of that month. This festival dates back at least a thousand years. It is just one aspect of the deep cultural heritage that Tamil Canadians have brought to Canada. The Thai Pongal festival is named so because it takes place on the first day of the month, Thai, in the Tamil calendar. This normally falls between the 12th and 15th of January. Pongal refers to the staple dish of the celebration, a sweet, rice-based dish, which I have seen compared to rice pudding.

Thai Pongal is a festival that can be celebrated by one and all, and it is known for its inclusiveness. It is a celebration akin to a thanksgiving for a successful harvest. One of the great aspects of Thai Pongal is the sharing of the pongal. Even though households all make their own, in the spirit of unity and inclusiveness, the pongal is meant to be shared. After the family meal, it will be shared among neighbours, friends, and other relatives.

It is not just a celebration that the Tamil Canadians are well known for. The Tamil language, literature, and art are also great examples of the depth of the culture and heritage of Tamil peoples. The Tamil language is the oldest spoken in India, and Tamil literature is the oldest known literature in India. While Tamil literature is considered to have begun in the first century CE, some inscriptions have been found it dating as far back as the third century BCE. In 2004, India declared Tamil a classical language because it met the criteria of being ancient, having an independent tradition, and possessing a considerable body of ancient literature.

When speaking of rich cultural heritages, it would simply be impossible to leave the Tamil people unmentioned. For more than 75 years now, Tamil Canadians have brought this incredible heritage to Canada, both on the economic and socio-cultural levels.

The NDP has long recognized these contributions and is proud to officially recognize the importance of Tamil heritage in Canada. This motion will see the federal government catch up to other jurisdictions, such as the provincial Government of Ontario, and the municipal governments of Toronto and Ottawa. Following the NDP bill from 2013 in the House, those jurisdictions adopted motions of their own, formally recognizing the heritage and contributions of Tamil Canadians during the month of January.

Today, Canada is home to hundreds of thousands of Tamil Canadians. In 2011, Statistics Canada found that nearly 147,000 Canadians identified Tamil as their mother tongue. Due to the large global Tamil diaspora population, the accuracy of this figure is challenged by some community organizations and experts. Those groups point to a population more in the range of 200,000 in the city of Toronto alone. Whatever the final tally, there is no doubt that many, many Tamil people have come to Canada to make it their home, to raise their families, and to contribute to the rich fabric of Canadian society.

The Tamil population is a noteworthy example of how Canada is made stronger through its cultural diversity as the community continues to grow and thrive here. I have just a few examples of the contributions Tamil Canadians have made to our country. I would like to point out three individuals.

The first is Shyam Selvadurai. He is a well-known, award-winning novelist who came to Canada with his family when he was 19. He is just one of many well-known Canadian authors with a Tamil background.

The second is Dr. Elagu Elaguppillai. After obtaining his Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Toronto, he travelled the world as a scholar and tenured professor in Malaysia and Zambia before returning to the University of Toronto. He has contributed immensely to Canada through his work at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, as well as being the Canadian expert at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

My third example is Logan Kanapathi. Mr. Kanapathi is the first person of Tamil heritage elected to government in Canada. In 2006, he became part of our history when he became the first Tamil Canadian to be elected to public office when he won a seat as a city councillor in Markham, Ontario.

Those are just three examples of the contributions that Tamil Canadians have made to our country, like so many groups coming to Canada, looking for a home that would allow them to thrive. Thankfully, many are able to find that in Canada and we all benefit. Whether it is the novel that we cannot put down, the local city councillor who listens to the concerns of the community, or a nuclear physicist ensuring that Canadian nuclear power plants are safe, the contributions of Tamil Canadians highlight not only their rich backgrounds but the strength of Canadian diversity.

Declaring January Tamil heritage month is another step the government can take to reaffirm the acknowledgement that Canada is strengthened by diversity. Promoting Tamil heritage month would not only show Tamil Canadians that their many social, cultural, and economic contributions are valued, but would provide Canadians from all walks of life a greater opportunity to learn about and experience the rich, vibrant, cultural background and history of Tamil Canadians.

It is my pleasure to stand in the House today to support this motion.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to have the opportunity in the House today to support Motion No. 24, introduced by my colleague and friend, the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park, which seeks to have the House recognize the Tamil community's contributions to Canada and to establish January as Tamil Heritage Month all across our great nation.

Being the representative of the second most diverse riding in Canada, a riding that is home to five Sikh gurdwaras, four Hindu temples, three mosques, and two churches, I and the people of Brampton East and all Canadians across our country understand the importance of cultural diversity.

The Tamil Canadian community is one of the fastest growing communities in Canada, and it contributes an unparalleled and immeasurable amount to our country and to my home riding of Brampton East. From the Brampton Tamil Seniors Association, which recently celebrated its third anniversary, to the Brampton Tamil Association, which hosts the annual Eelam Pavilion at the Carabram multicultural festival, Tamil Canadian community leaders and volunteers dedicate countless hours to enriching the already-vibrant community of Brampton, for Tamil and non-Tamil residents alike.

I would like to take a moment to speak about the Brampton Tamil Seniors Association. This group serves 200 active seniors in Brampton, and consistently meets on Mondays at a local community centre to bring activities to seniors who are in isolation or face disability issues. Seniors have the opportunity to mingle, build a support network, and learn computer skills, among other things, which are all essential for seniors in our community. It is contributing to the local community by helping provide the very basic services these seniors require, in a context that is relevant to their community.

The leadership of the community is to be commended. It is for this reason, among others, that in Brampton, every January since 2014 has been proclaimed Tamil Heritage Month. Celebrating and embracing cultural diversity is vital for the city of Brampton.

As many in this House know, January is an important month for Tamil Canadians. During this time, Thai Pongal, the Tamil harvest festival, and other Tamil artistic and cultural events take place throughout the month. Thai Pongal is a celebration to give thanks to the sun for providing the energy for a bountiful harvest. It is a value that is so essentially Canadian, simply because it is deeply ingrained in every culture that makes up our great nation.

Much like many Canadians, the Tamil people came to our country after facing horrific experiences in their own country. They deeply understand the value and importance of freedom and justice, and they stand firm with our Canadian identity and our Canadian values. They advocate for human rights, freedom, tolerance, and generosity.

Many arrived in Canada as refugees decades ago, and now are proudly part of the Canadian fabric. The community's success can be attributed to hard-working individuals who value post-secondary education and fiscal responsibility.

It is remarkable that, within a relatively short span of time, Tamil Canadians have established themselves in Canada. Empowered by their high level of literacy, education, and professional competency in all walks of life, they have planted deep roots in Canada and are flourishing from entrepreneurship, in business establishments, and as doctors, lawyers, and engineers. They are represented as lawyers from Osgoode Hall, like the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park, and members of Parliament where the first Tamil Canadian was elected to this House last session. In this current session our good friend the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park serves alongside us.

On a personal note, when I was in high school in Brampton, I stuck out because of my turban and my identity. Even though I grew up in a city where diversity was the norm, I always shied away from celebrating who I was. Some of my Tamil friends felt that they could not celebrate their heritage. In the last 10 to 15 years, we have come a long way in our society. We have come a long way in our city and in our province, where Tamil Heritage Month is celebrated on such a grand scale every January.

I look forward to having this motion passed and January being declared Tamil heritage month, so people across the country, from coast to coast to coast, can celebrate the Tamil heritage and Thai Pongal. Canadians of all walks of life, no matter where they come from, no matter what they believe in, will be able to celebrate with their Tamil brothers and sisters in the joyous occasion of Tamil heritage month every January.

In essence, the success story of Tamil Canadians is just another Canadian success story. I encourage all my hon. colleagues to support this motion.