Debates of June 6th, 2018

Foreign Investment

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the parliamentary secretary, one would think this was a runaway success. The fact is that a Chinese company has now gone into the hands of the Chinese government, and somehow the government's approval of that deal was good thing not only for the people of Canada but for the seniors living in the Waverly Seniors Village in Chilliwack. The review process clearly failed. We are at a point today where the Government of China is the effective owner of Canadian retirement centres.

How is it a net benefit to my constituents living in the Waverly Seniors Village in Chilliwack that the government approved this sale to Anbang Insurance?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the opposition might engage in these types of scare tactics and fearmongering, let us talk about the facts. The day-to-day operation of seniors home remains under the control of Retirement Concepts. It is the same management that was there before. The residences continue to be subject to the same provincial health regulations to which they have always been subject.

The residents and health care workers will continue to be protected under the same legislation and regulations as before. As I have said before, we continue to actively monitor Cedar Tree and its compliance with its legal obligations.

Due to the confidentiality provisions of the Investment Canada Act, I and my colleagues cannot comment further on this investment. I can assure the member that officials are carefully monitoring the situation and are in close contact with Cedar Tree, provincial regulators and other relevant stakeholders.

Justice

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, l will add some context for people watching at home. British Columbia is three hours behind, so maybe people are still up.

These late show debates are an opportunity to follow up after having 30 seconds to ask a question in question period and the government side having only 30 seconds to answer. Sometimes we do not really get a full answer. Maybe it is because 30 seconds is not long enough to ask a good question. I remain hopeful and I take advantage of these opportunities to have four minutes to ask a more extensive question, and then the government can take longer to respond.

When I asked my question, it was just after the terrible story of Tina Fontaine, a young girl in Manitoba who weighed only 72 pounds. She was murdered. Her trial was a mess, and it was a terrible disappointment when her accused killer was not convicted. There was no hope for the family of what might happen with her case. It was a real blow to the hope that the country would—through the justice system, the social support system, the social safety net, by repairing the damage of the residential school system, by repairing the damage of the child welfare system—give the families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls some hope.

It was in this context that I asked the government how it would support the inquiry to ensure there would no more Tina Fontaines and to ensure we supported the families and survivors.

We had great hope in the murdered and missing indigenous women and girls Inquiry. We need it to do its work. We need this from a social justice point of view, but we also need this to move forward as a nation.

Since that debate, some other terrible news came out. The families that were working with the inquiry, trusting it with their stories, were encouraged to ask for the kinds of counselling and aftercare that would help them after they had gone through the trauma of telling their stories.

This was reported by CBC on May 8. Families that were submitting bills for aftercare were being nickel-and-dimed by both the inquiry and the Privy Council Office. An elder was hired by the family of Joan Winning, the aunt of Nicole Daniels, a 16-year-old girl who was found murdered. She died of hypothermia, but there were complications. People were concerned this was a violent act. They were told they needed an invoice from the elder. It was completely disrespectful to the family, but also the elders, who are not business people.

The inquiry was stuck in between the families and the government and Privy Council Office bureaucracy. This blew up on the front pages of the news across the country just when we needed to build some faith for the families that they would be well cared for.

Again, what is the government doing to ensure families do not have these terrible experiences of being disrespected by our federal government bureaucracy at the time when they need us to treat them with the most sensitivity possible?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to answer the question from my hon. colleague by noting that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, which I did not mention the first time I stood.

I want to take a moment to express my deepest sympathies to Tina Fontaine's family, friends, and community. When she went missing, she was 15 years old, and my daughter had turned 15 at that time too. I will never forget her name.

Her story underscores the important work being done by the national inquiry. The national inquiry is looking into the causes of the systemic and institutional failures that led to Tina's murder, and to the murders of far too many other indigenous women and girls. The families of the victims, and all Canadians, deserve to know why.

The national inquiry's interim report was released on November 1 last year. It includes a literature review of 98 reports on violence against indigenous women and girls in Canada.

Our government is taking action to address the interim recommendations of the national inquiry. Canada is increasing health supports and victim services and establishing a commemoration fund. Our government is funding organizations with expertise in law enforcement and policing to lead a review of police policies and practices concerning police's relations with the indigenous peoples they serve. Canada is also supporting a Royal Canadian Mounted Police national investigative standards and practices unit with additional funding.

The six-month extension to the inquiry announced yesterday will provide the commission with the time needed to complete their work, while balancing the needs of families who have been waiting years for answers. This extension will also allow the commission, if it chooses, to hear from the rest of the families, and for further institutional and expert hearings.

Tina Fontaine's story is too familiar to families across the country. It is reflective of Canada's neglectful and shameful relationship with indigenous peoples for more than 150 years.

It is time to change that story, and the government is taking action while the national inquiry undertakes its important work. With budgets 2016, 2017 and 2018, the Government of Canada has provided unprecedented funding for indigenous and northern communities, of nearly $16.8 billion. The money will benefit indigenous women and girls in the areas of education, language, culture, safe water, housing, and women's shelters, training, access to capital, and child and family services. The money has also gone toward increasing safety on the Highway of Tears.

It is a comprehensive approach, because that is what is needed to root out this systemic problem. The government is also undertaking work on a comprehensive strategy to end gender-based violence. We are committed to ending this national tragedy. We will ensure that families get the answers they are looking for.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the difficulty with this is the bureaucracy of the federal government. It should be able to facilitate the work of the inquiry, but that has just not happened.

The inquiry, in its interim report of November 1, said that eight of the 10 problems they were facing were all with federal government bureaucracy. None of those problems were addressed in the government's response. The minister said yesterday that “We're well on our way”, and that they were within a week of that November 1 report. However, the evidence does not back that up.

On May 1, the inquiry sent a letter to the families, saying that the payment delays were unacceptable, that the Privy Council Office was responsible, and that the guidelines were laborious. The families say they have phoned the inquiry and that nobody returns their calls.

How can that be the headline, given the imperative of doing this important work that my colleague cites?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the extension that was granted yesterday does allow for some of that work to be done.

Our government's work on ending violence against indigenous women and girls is grounded in the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Articles 7 and 22 in particular speak to indigenous peoples' rights to live free of violence, and the responsibility of states to protect indigenous women and girls.

The calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada also guide our efforts. The commission has pressed Canada to act by providing culturally relevant services to indigenous inmates, and by collecting and publishing data on family violence, as well as tracking our progress on reducing rates of violence.

We are committed to ending this ongoing national tragedy.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Canada's interactions with the Iranian regime. The questions I have posed before I feel have, by and large, gone unanswered.

A Liberal MP, during the throes of a protest movement against the authoritarian, theocratic government of Iran, said that this Iranian government was elected. This comment was deeply offensive to the Iranian community and to Iran's democracy movement, right at a moment when they were fighting for their fundamental rights. Does the Government of Canada agree with its MP's characterization of Iran's government as elected, or does it not? This is something it should be willing to say.

The Iranian regime is a leading sponsor of global terror, murder, and violence. The Government of Iran played a major role, we have now learned, in supporting Hamas-instigated violence on Israel's border, violence for which the Prime Minister called out Israel, not Hamas or Iran. Why did the Prime Minister issue a statement that did not call out Iran and Hamas?

The Canadian government called for an independent investigation into alleged actions by Israel during the border clashes but has asked Iran to investigate itself over the killing of Canadian professor Seyed-Emami in an Iranian prison. Why does the government seem more confident in Iran's capacity for neutral self-assessment than in Israel's?

There has been a very tepid response from the government, in general, to Iranian aggression and human rights violations. There has been an insistence on continuing to pursue warmer relations, with the government going so far as to directly finance an aerospace deal with Iran.

Some of my friends across the way want to profess their commitment to advocating for human rights in Iran. If so, it should not be difficult to denounce the Iranian government and reject the claim from one of their colleagues that it is elected. Hold the Government of Iran responsible for the violence it instigates in the region, and acknowledge the obvious reality that people do not die in Evin prison by suicide.

As the opposition, it is our job to ask tough, serious questions about the failure of the government to stand up for fundamental human rights in Iran and in many other places.

What is going on here in terms of the government's failure to expect democracy and stand up for human rights, including the rights of Canadians? If we look at the aerospace dimension and the opportunity for Bombardier's shareholders, there is a legitimate question about whether the government is making its decision on the basis of the interests of Bombardier, instead of on the basis of Canadian and universal human values.

However, I think there is something else going on here, when we look at its approach to Iran. This is what Michael Gerson calls the soft bigotry of low expectations that plagues the actions of western countries in their interactions with many nations in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. That is, the same states that criticize real or perceived declines in democracy in European or American states, in many cases have much less to say about worse abuses of process and fundamental human rights in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Why do governments single out Israel for criticism, for example, while ignoring other abuses in the region? Perhaps, to some extent, this is also rooted in the soft bigotry of low expectations. So much less criticism is directed toward authoritarian states in the region, perhaps because, unfortunately, much less is expected of them.

Human rights, universal citizenship, and democracy are the birthright of all people, affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and are the necessary consequence of recognizing our shared humanity.

On this side of the House, we reject the soft bigotry of low expectations for Iran. We believe that freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are the proper birthright of the Iranian people. They want it, they deserve it, and they will have it. The question for us is simply whether we will be on their side or not.

We need to know where the Government of Canada stands on this claim from a Liberal MP that the Iranian government is elected. Why did the Prime Minister issue a statement that failed to call out Iran and Hamas for their instigation of violence against Israel? Why does the government seem more confident in Iran's capacity for neutral self-assessment than in Israel's? These questions, which I have asked many times before, demand an answer.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of issues in my hon. colleague's comments, so I will take the time to answer some of them.

Contrary to what the member has implied, there have been no high-level meetings in Ottawa with Iranian officials involving the Government of Canada on the subject of this unconfirmed sale, nor is the government privy to any details regarding this unconfirmed sale. The government was first made aware of this potential sale from media sources, and Bombardier has not asked Global Affairs for any assistance in the sale of aircraft to Iran. At no time have Iranian officials discussed such a potential sale with Global Affairs.

Canada is maintaining its strict sanctions and export controls on goods listed as proliferation-sensitive in Iran, including goods and technology that could potentially further the development of Iran's nuclear programs and ballistic missiles.

Furthermore, Canada continues to list Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act, lifting its immunity and allowing civil action to be taken against it under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. Canada has also listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as being involved in Iran's external operations as a terrorist entity under Canada's Criminal Code.

Canada also continues to demand an inquiry into the detention and tragic death of Canadian Dr. Kavous Seyed-Emami in Iran's Evin prison. We continue to call on Iranian authorities to immediately give his widow, Maryam Mombeini, the freedom to exit Iran and return to Canada. The government has publicly stated on several occasions that as long as Ms. Mombeini is not able to leave Iran, the focus of any discussions with Iran will be on her coming home.

Canadians expect that their government will protect their interests and values abroad, stand up for human rights, and to provide consular services to Canadians in distress in Iran, such as the families of Dr. Seyed-Emami and Ms. Mombeini, and others. Providing these consular services and speaking up on behalf of human rights victims requires the ability to engage. We must take action that will serve and protect Canadians abroad.

Engagement and dialogue are about protecting interests and promoting values. They are not about ignoring actions we find objectionable or legitimizing governments that violate human rights. This government wants to address our international challenges head-on. Iranian behaviour represents one of the greatest challenges we currently face on the international stage. If we fail to engage, we fail to understand, and if we fail to understand, we are more likely to end up in a position where we have fewer good options. Protecting Canadian interests and promoting Canadian values are much harder to then accomplish. This government chooses dialogue and engagement as the best way to protect Canadian interests and values.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's comment about aerospace, I turned up two articles on Google in the time that she was talking. The first is from Reuters, entitled, “Canada to lift Tehran sanctions, allow Bombardier to export to Iran”. It is from a couple of years ago, actually. The second article is entitled “Minister sees Iran thaw as opportunity for Canadian aerospace industry”. We have all seen these headlines.

To her other comments, she spoke about the value of engagement. Let us be clear that Zahra Kazemi was a Canadian citizen who died in an Iranian prison at the time of the previous Liberal government. I am not blaming it, of course, but the fact is that we had diplomatic relations at the time. Let us be clear as well that downgrading diplomatic relations is a tool that countries use in response to protest terrible human rights abuses and threatening international behaviour. In fact, the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke today before the foreign affairs committee about downgrading our diplomatic relationship with Venezuela in response to violations of human rights.

Again, why the different treatment of Iran? Why the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, there have been no meetings on record with Iranian officials and the government around the sale, so I am not sure. The hon. member is pulling this information up, but we do not have those records.

Diplomacy is a necessary tool to defend Canada's interests and protect Canadian values. It is all the more necessary when dealing with a country that challenges our interests and rejects our values. We feel strongly that it is through dialogue and not through withdrawal or isolation that we can best advance Canada's interests, including the resolution of complex and sensitive consular cases like the ones described earlier.

To be clear, however, there have been no high-level meetings again here in Ottawa with Iranian officials involving the Government of Canada on the subject of the unconfirmed sale. Iran is a political opponent challenging the interests of Canada and of our friends and allies. We can deal with this challenge—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to the order made Tuesday, May 29, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until later today at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:26 a.m.)