Debates of Sept. 20th, 2018

Firearms Act

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-71 at third reading.

As we know, the recent increases in crimes committed with a firearm, gang activity, and homicides in our communities and cities require our urgent attention. A review of our firearms laws in Canada is long overdue, and Bill C-71 contains practical and balanced reforms that will help us achieve that.

We began by proposing mandatory criminal background checks as well as stricter controls for transporting restricted or prohibited firearms.

We began by proposing to remove the Governor in Council's authority to downgrade the classification of a firearm contrary to what is provided in the definition under the Criminal Code, thereby reclassifying some firearms in the prohibited weapons category, and then by limiting their authorized transfer through grandfathering.

We began by restoring a consistent approach to classification and by creating a bill that will help combat the problem of unauthorized access to firearms.

All of these reforms are about putting public safety first, and about making this bill enforceable and reasonable for responsible gun owners. These reforms are not about restoring the federal long gun registry. The committee agreed to add a provision that clarifies this exact point. The reforms also do not add any unreasonable measures for gun owners and retailers.

Hon. members in the House are calling on the federal government to look at how banned weapons get into the hands of organized crime, and this is exactly what the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction is responsible for. That is his job.

These reforms will stop guns from getting into the wrong hands and will help keep our communities safe. The bill we are debating today has been strengthened and improved by the comments and recommendations of my colleagues in the House, as well as the testimony of the many experts we heard in committee.

I would like to talk about how each party contributed to designing a bill that is able to do more.

As an aside, I want to mention that my brother is a gun enthusiast. He has his licence, and we talk about this topic every time we go for dinner at our mother's house.

First, the parties proposed enhancing background checks of firearms licence applicants, and the Liberal Party and Green Party amendments to that effect were adopted in committee with the agreement of the Conservative Party and NDP members. These amendments mean that from now on, specific additional checks will be done over the lifetime of a firearms licence applicant.

All parties agreed that if an applicant has a history of threatening behaviour or poses a risk of causing harm to himself or others, these factors must absolutely be taken into consideration in evaluating the application.

We now have a bill that expressly states, in no uncertain terms, that an individual's threatening behaviour must be taken into account in determining that individual's eligibility for a licence. What is more, the amendments that all parties agreed to contributed to expressly take into account whether the individual was or was not subject to a previous order prohibiting the possession of firearms in connection with violence against an intimate partner or former intimate partner. The bill now clearly indicates that threats of violence and threatening behaviour can include those communicated on the Internet or any other digital network.

This amendment responds to a serious and growing problem. Online harassment and hate, including threats of violence, have unfortunately become all too common in 2018. This is a disturbing trend that disproportionately affects women, racialized persons and LGBTQ people, and it gives way to racism, sexism, and intolerance in our daily lives.

According to Statistics Canada, one in six Internet users reported seeing content that promotes hate or violence, and 7% of these people have experienced it. Enforcement has focused on how to address this problem. Canadians from all walks of life are concerned about violent threats at a time when our lives depend on the use of the Internet.

With this amendment we can assure Canadians that the assessment of eligibility for a firearms licence will take into consideration threatening behaviour. This represents a reasonable and modern approach that will prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.

I will cite some other amendments, moved by the different parties, that were adopted.

The Conservative amendment to section 1 would specify that the government will not reintroduce the federal long-gun registry. There is nothing in the bill to that effect and therefore that is quite fair.

The NDP's amendment makes a practical precision to the rules on transferring non-restricted firearms. The law will state that a reference number confirming the validity of the licence may apply to one transaction including the transfer of one or more unrestricted firearms. Clause 5 already sets out the conditions for transferring a non-restricted firearm, and it already includes the conditions for transferring more than one non-restricted firearm. However, the amended bill clarifies that if the licence and reference number are valid, people are free to transfer ownership of more than one non-restricted firearm.

I thank all parties for their work on this bill. It will be an improvement.

Once the bill is passed, if people plan to sell or give a non-restricted firearm, they will have to make sure that the person receiving it has a valid licence. They will also have to confirm with the RCMP's Canadian firearms program that the licence is valid, which will take just a few minutes.

Under the new law, the authorities who decide whether to issue a permit will also have to take into account an individual's entire record of certain types of criminal activities and violent behaviours, not just those of the previous five years.

It is already a best practice to include certain pieces of information in non-restricted firearm records, and we will support that practice by making it a legal obligation. Records will have to include the licence verification reference number issued by the registrar of firearms. They must also include the transferee's licence number and the date. Records will include information about the firearm being transferred, such as the serial number, date of manufacture, model and type. Firearms vendors must keep these records for at least 20 years. To be clear, businesses, not the government, will keep these records. It is already common practice for businesses to have these records and keep this kind of inventory. This bill will simply make that practice mandatory.

This new measure will guarantee that firearms are sold only to people with a valid licence, which will help save time and resources when it comes to enforcing the law. What is more, it will better support criminal investigations by providing the police with a tool that will make it easier to track non-restricted firearms that were used to commit a crime and to identify suspects of firearms offences. That will facilitate investigations and provide evidence that could help secure a conviction.

We are making these proposals with due consideration for privacy. Law enforcement agencies will not have any special powers in this regard. They will have to continue to operate under existing laws. All of this is supported by a consistent approach to firearms classification and safe and legal transportation requirements.

These proposals are effective measures that will enhance public safety and yet will still be fair and manageable for firearms owners and merchants.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, during this debate, I have heard simple slogans from the Conservative Party time and time again.

This law cannot be taken in isolation. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is very important, but how do we actually prevent people from becoming criminals?

We have instituted gang programs. We have instituted education programs. We have provided more monies for families, for instance, through the Canada child benefit program, to help people not only in the inner city but also in the suburbs, to help our children. We have put in place housing programs. We are giving people tools to make good choices in their lives. I do not believe anyone wants to end up one day becoming a criminal and destroying the lives of their fellow citizens.

Could the hon. member for Edmonton Centre tell us if this law should be taken in isolation or should it be taken as part of a whole-of-government approach, looking at a plethora of programs and a plethora of laws that we are putting in place in order to improve the lives of Canadians and actually make Canadians safer?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Indeed, this is part of a whole-of-government approach in protecting Canadians and reinforcing security for our communities.

It is important to note that we respect and admire the process that law-abiding gun owners go through to receive their permits. Bill C-71 is attempting to strengthen background checks and licence verification. People in Alberta have to get their licences renewed every five years to drive a car. It is important to know that people have valid permits in order to use their legally registered firearms. We have to have more sensible rules around the transportation of restricted and prohibited firearms and a consistent approach to classification.

Cabinet should not be able to decide the technical matters of whether a weapon is prohibited, restricted or permitted. That is up to technical gun experts, and that is exactly what Bill C-71 is allowing this government to do to keep Canadians safer.

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

Madam Speaker, the correspondence that I am getting in Nanaimo—Ladysmith about Bill C-71 and the amendments to the gun safety process that the Liberal government is proposing are running kind of fifty-fifty. I am very aware that many responsible gun owners, hunters and gun clubs in my riding are very concerned about the design of this. They see the steps as mostly being unnecessary. They are already comporting themselves well and already subject to a lot of rules. In the spirit of co-operation, I will provide one example and hope that the government representative can give me some detail. I am hoping you can reassure this constituent of mine.

Andrew from Nanaimo said, “The background checks for the possession and acquisition licence are already currently legislated to go back five years. However, at the discretion of the chief firearms officer, they can go back as far as they feel necessary already. On top of this, all PAL holders are run through the Canadian police information centre daily to check to for any infractions which may be of concern. If C-71 passes and these mandatory lifetime background checks are required every time a licence is renewed rather than just on a new application, this will simply be a waste of RCMP resources. Instead of lifetime, why not just set the time frame for new applicant background checks to be at the CFO's discretion? They will probably go as far back as when the applicant turned 18 anyway”.

Through you, can you let me know if that is a consideration as a way to minimize the impact on—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address the questions to the Chair. I know she said “through you”, but then earlier in her speech she also directed the information directly to the member. If members do not use the word “you”, it will be better.

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the committee talked about and looked at this question. I believe it was a motion accepted by all parties, of not allowing background checks that would span more than five years to be optional. We are seeing a rise not just in violent crime but in Internet hate and violence in online communities. The idea was that if there are going to be licences and we have to make sure they are valid, the ability to check a person's history throughout the course of his or her life needs to be required. It should no longer be optional and needs to be required. The committee debated it and found it was in the interest of the safety of Canadians. That is why it is in Bill C-71.

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

Madam Speaker, if I were to try to summarize this piece of legislation in three words, the three words that would come to my mind would be “enhancing public safety”. That is the essence of what this bill is all about. Having said that, I would like to make a statement that I would think is very obvious and that the Conservative Party members might want to listen in on.

In the last federal election the Liberal Party made a commitment to do just that, those three simple but very important words. Bill C-71 is a fulfillment of a commitment that this Prime Minister and this caucus made to the electorate back in 2015. No one should be surprised by the legislation. In fact, I would have thought people would have been disappointed if we did not bring in the legislation. I know many of my constituents and Canadians in all regions of this country would be disappointed in the government had we not brought forward legislation of this nature because we had made a commitment to do so.

This piece of legislation reflects where the Conservative Party is coming from. Number one, it demonstrates that the Conservative Party really and truly is out of touch with what Canadians think and believe. I would encourage people to read what the minister responsible, the member for Regina—Wascana, read into the record. Very clearly, he indicated the details of what this bill would do. I suspect that if the Conservatives were to canvass Canadians in a public forum and possibly have a public meeting, they would find overwhelming support for what the member for Regina—Wascana explained to this House earlier today.

The changes that are being made, a few of which I will highlight very shortly, are fairly straightforward, but the Conservatives have this Stephen Harper mentality. They really have not forgotten Stephen Harper. One of my colleagues calls it Harperite disease, or something of that nature. The member across the way puts two thumbs up for Harper. I mention his name and they applaud. They do not quite understand that going the Harper way is not what Canadians want to see of the official opposition. We often kid around that the Conservatives' current leader is just Harper but with a smile. We say that kind of tongue in cheek, but in reality, in many issues it is true. There really is not very much difference between the current leader and Stephen Harper, and this is a good example of it. We listen to the propaganda and the spin that are coming from the opposition today, and we get a good appreciation as to why Canadians would believe there is no difference between the Harper years previously and the Conservative Party today under this new leader. I want to be parliamentary here. That spin is incredibly misleading.

Listening to the speakers, some of them are more candid than others. Some will say this is all about a long-gun registry. It is amazing. It is just not true. The Prime Minister has said that. The ministers have said that. Members on this side have said that. In fact, while this bill was in committee, a Conservative member moved an amendment to make sure it was very clear, in the legislation where it says in no way is it associated with a long-gun registry. That motion actually passed. We would think that would stop them from wanting to give misinformation, but the misinformation continues. Like Stephen Harper, the Conservatives went to every region of the country talking about how bad the long-gun registry was. I do not believe it was good. That is why the Liberals voted that way—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The microphone has been shut off. All the members have been here for quite some time, for the most part. There are only a few who have been fairly recent. I would just say that everybody knows what the rules of the House are, and it is not about shouting at each other while one person is talking. I know it is a very controversial bill, from what I can tell based on the discussion, or should I say very passionate. I would just say that if people want to ask questions or make comments, that they wait their turn to be able to do that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is really not that controversial a bill if one reads the content, but if we take into consideration the Harper Conservative rhetoric in opposition on it, then I can understand why many people who are listening to the debate would think that it is controversial. It really is not controversial. What is it doing?

If we ask Canadians if there is anything wrong with having background checks, there is nothing is wrong with that. All we are doing is allowing the chief financial officer to extend it beyond five years. What is wrong with that? One of the members across the way said it already does that. The bill would obligate it as opposed to making it optional. That is the point.

The Conservatives will say off the record or in the hallways that if it gets down to the core of what the legislation actually does, maybe there is nothing wrong with that, but they do not want to be thrown off the Harper Conservative spin, which means they have to oppose Bill C-71 and make it out to be something it is not. The content is good. It is solid. It is part of an election platform that means we will have better, safer communities that we all represent. There is nothing wrong with extending background checks.

It would require sellers to verify that purchasers are allowed to possess a firearm. What is wrong with that? Even in the U.S. they do that, but not the Harper Conservatives. They feel compelled to oppose that.

It is amazing when Conservatives talk about the registry. Back in the days of Brian Mulroney, retailers were compelled to register the firearms they sold. Brian Mulroney recognized that as a positive thing and so does this legislation. It happens in the U.S. Organizations like the NRA, an organization that many of the Conservatives across the way would salute, provide registries for retailers to ensure it is being done in a proper way. Again, that is what the legislation is doing. Every measure within this legislation makes sense and would be supported by a vast majority of Canadians. Only the Conservative Party seems to be at complete odds with this legislation.

I would welcome and invite a member from the Conservative Party to come to Winnipeg North and have a breakfast or lunch discussion on the issue. I look at the legislation and I am convinced that if members put the Harper Conservative spin aside and were concerned about public safety and wanted to add value to that issue, one of the things they could do is reverse their position, stop the rhetoric and support this legislation. If they did that, I believe that at the end of the day even their own constituents would appreciate the fact that this is good legislation and that they made a positive decision.

The Conservative Party stands alone inside this chamber. The Green Party, the Bloc, the New Democrats, Liberals and Canadians are all onside. The only ones who seem to be offside are the Conservative opposition members. I would suggest they skip the rhetoric, look at the substance, get on board and vote yes for this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that the bill could be summarized in three words: enhancing public safety. I spent quite a bit of my summer talking to different people in my riding, many of them hunters, sport shooters and farmers, and to a person, they are concerned that the bill does absolutely zero in terms of enhancing public safety. It adds an administrative burden to their lives and it potentially criminalizes law-abiding citizens.

Here we have Bill C-71, which my colleague says could be summarized in three words, enhancing public safety. At the same time, we have Bill C-75, which proposes to reduce sentences for some very violent acts in this country.

How can my colleague stand and look anyone in the eye and say honestly that Bill C-71 is summarized by enhancing public safety?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, very easily, because it does just that. We are talking about Bill C-71. If one were to attend a Conservative convention in Alberta and go over this legislation, which I would be more than happy to attend with an invitation from my colleague, I suspect even Conservatives would support this legislation. I really believe that.

In Winnipeg North, we have Conservatives. Unfortunately, a few too many, but we have Conservatives, and I meet with them too. I do not believe the member, who is trying to give an impression, I would suggest a false impression, that Canadians would not support this kind of legislation. I know it because I have been working and dealing with issues of this nature for many years, both in opposition and in government. This is the type of legislation that can make a positive difference, and Canadians do support it.

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

Madam Speaker, for the people of my region, there are a couple of questions that are very important, and one is that there are concerns about the transportation requirements. Legitimate gun owners want to know that they would be able to go to events such as gun shows legally, and there are a lot of questions and uncertainty on the transportation requirements.

The second issue is on background checks. I believe we have to extend background checks, because we are seeing a large number of suicides and domestic deaths from guns. The question comes on the renewal period. For someone who has been a long-time gun owner, I have done the renewal checks, and I think they are pretty good. However, when there is family crisis, like people losing their jobs, without being too intrusive but for community protection, how do we ensure proper checks? To me, that is a big issue. Domestic gun violence by legitimate gun owners is a serious issue. We have to find a find a way to do this in a manner that is not over-policing legitimate gun owners but that is also ensuring public safety.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the issue of background checks and how we do it credibly so we can reduce the number of self-harm deaths, and how we have transportation requirements which are not unfairly impinging on people's work and use of guns.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, with regard to transportation, one of the nice things we have seen within this legislation, and something the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness talked about, is that the primary transportation of these types of firearms is to and from a qualified shooting range. I believe it is 95%, or it might be just over 90%. In that sort of a situation, one would not be obligated to get a travelling permit every time. There has been special consideration given to that.

I do not want to claim to know all the details, but I can say that whether through the Internet or other means, one can get very good details. We have many fine responsible firearm owners, and they understand and appreciate that these are not actions that are going to hurt them. This is about public safety.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Veterans Affairs; and the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in this place and speak, not necessarily just on this bill, but on this issue. I have been speaking on this issue in the House it seems for 25 years, but in reality it is 18 years, because that is when I came to the House. Today it is Bill C-71, which has been dubbed the firearm owners harassment act, and most of my constituents believe that is what Bill C-71 is.

Last spring, I wrote a biweekly column for the papers in my constituency. In that newspaper column, the reference was Groundhog Day, because when Bill C-71 was introduced, it was much like Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day reliving a very memorable and disturbing day. For me, that day happened back on February 14, 1995. Over and over, we have had reference to that day here in the House of Commons. It was the day that ultimately led to my seeking election for this place in 2000. It was the day that Bill C-68 was introduced by former Liberal justice minister Allan Rock. I will say that there is still a distrust among law-abiding gun owners in this country of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I will paint this picture a little clearer. We are debating Bill C-71, but today in the Globe and Mail, the story is that one of our ministers is going to begin consultations on banning firearms, banning handguns, across Canada. Therefore, although we debate Bill C-71, which has bad proposed legislation in it, the background is that there is more going on with the Liberal government. One of my colleagues from Lethbridge earlier this week delivered a petition to Parliament with 86,000 signatures from law-abiding gun owners in this country. There are over 10,000 from Quebec and tens of thousands from other provinces across this country. There is very little trust in the Liberal government when it comes to this issue, because we have seen it in the past.

While the grip that the Liberal government is trying to put on law-abiding firearm owners this time is not as tight as the one that Mr. Rock tried in the mid-1990s, we believe that any movement on this bill that takes away the rights of law-abiding gun owners is not right, fair, or in the best interest of Canadians.

On the day that the public safety minister introduced Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, many were immediately ready to jump to compare it to the infamous predecessor. I thought at that time that I would reserve judgment. That reservation lasted about 20 minutes, as it did not take long, after reading through the legislation, to see what the Liberal government was trying to do. It does not bring it back to the extent of the ineffective long-gun registry, but it is a very good step toward that.

In the mid-1990s, Bill C-68 created the billion-dollar gun registry and made criminals out of law-abiding firearm owners such as farmers and duck hunters. However, it did not solve the problem. Many Canadians, particularly anglers, hunters and farmers, which is the majority of my riding, who had been in possession of their firearms for a long time, were made to retroactively, and at a great cost both financially and emotionally, ensure that the make, model, serial number, calibre and barrel length of their firearm was properly recorded and placed on the firearm registry. Failure to do so could turn them into an immediate criminal. That is the kind of intent that the Liberal government has in regard to legal firearm owners, law-abiding citizens.

Soon after forming government in 2006, Stephen Harper and our Conservative caucus immediately moved to eliminate the long-gun registry and to restore the respect that law-abiding firearm owners had been denied since former Liberal justice minister Allan Rock tabled Bill C-68. Unfortunately, once again, that respect is being stripped away, and firearm owners will be made to feel like criminals under the reference number provision outlined in Bill C-71.

Section 5 of the Firearms Act is being amended to include the requirement for anyone transferring a long gun to obtain a reference number from the firearm registry. Before any firearm can be sold or given away, the buyer has to show a licence, and the seller, whether a retailer or private citizen, has to confirm it is valid with the registrar. The problem with this, and I mentioned it in the House before, is that all throughout constituencies in western Canada and indeed Canada—Ontario is similar and possibly Quebec, but I am not certain—there are gun shows going on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, where thousands of collectors, farmers, and law-abiding firearm owners are buying that next rifle for hunting or protecting their livestock. That is going to cause massive problems with the industry gun shows, like gun shows in Concort, Hanna, Castor and Torrington, and the list goes on throughout my constituency.

Currently, vendors are trusted to do a requisite licence check without confirmation. The registrar will issue the reference number only if satisfied that the person buying or receiving the firearm holds or is able to hold an eligible licence.

I see that my time is up. I just want to underscore that this is bad legislation. I encourage the Liberals to back off on Bill C-71.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 4:29 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the question on the motion is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Monday, September 24, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Do I have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Consequently, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Women, Peace and Security Ambassador

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

moved:

That the House: (a) recognize that Canada has a rich tradition of peacekeeping, peace-making and peacebuilding; (b) recognize that Canada is a world leader in the promotion of human rights and peace, having crafted the wording of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, envisioned the creation of the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, championed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (the “Ottawa Treaty”) and initiated and led on the Responsibility to Protect doctrine; (c) recognize that the government drafted Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which calls on member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to contribute to the further development of peaceful international relations, including by seeking to eliminate conflict and promoting conditions of stability and well-being; (d) recognize that harmful practices and social norms, including among women, that uphold gender hierarchies and other intersecting forms of marginalization and exclusion or condone violence are often exacerbated during conflict and that women and men must be equally committed to changing attitudes, behaviours, and roles to support gender equality; (e) acknowledge that overcoming insecurity and achieving sustainable peace are daily concerns for these communities and that women and girls suffer disproportionately in these conflict settings but remain almost entirely excluded from the processes that build peace; (f) recall resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council, notably Resolution 1325 (2000), which reaffirm the important and consequential role in women’s engagement in preventing and resolving conflicts, in peace operations, in humanitarian response, in post-conflict reconstruction, and in counter-terrorism, and countering violent extremism; (g) acknowledge Canada’s own challenges, including gender-based violence and underlying gender inequality and work to develop a framework to implement the Women, Peace and Security agenda domestically; and (h) reaffirm Canada’s commitment to build on our recognized accomplishments and enhance our leadership role in advancing the cause of peace domestically and throughout the world by calling on the government to develop a plan to appoint a Women, Peace and Security Ambassador to: (i) promote research and studies relating to root causes of and preconditions leading to violent conflict and to conflict resolution and prevention, for respect for women’s and girls’ human rights and to conditions conducive to peace, (ii) support the implementation of education, training and counselling in non-violent conflict resolution, (iii) initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement, and promote national policies, projects and programs relating to the reduction and prevention of conflict and empowerment of women and girls and the development and maintenance of conditions conducive to peace, (iv) encourage the development and implementation of gender and peace-based initiatives by governmental and non-governmental entities including engaging with stakeholders, educational institutions and civil society, (v) lead the implementation of the Canadian National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, (vi) promote gender equality and the integration of gender perspectives into peacebuilding and peacekeeping, (vii) review and assess the Departments' yearly Action Plan reporting.

Madam Speaker, this past summer I hosted a series of round tables on women, peace and security from coast to coast, from Vancouver to Halifax. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the participants, who represented over 100 Canadian NGOs, not just for their participation and their good counsel, but also to thank them for the years, decades, and in some cases a lifetime of work and commitment on issues of gender equality, human rights, democratic rights, international development and peace.

In the House we often disagree on matters, but there is one thing on which all of us would agree and that is that we are blessed to live in the best country on the planet. We do not just say that because we are exuberantly proud Canadians; it is actually substantiated by the facts. For instance, the World Forum last year in its annual rankings of the most livable countries in the world based on multiple matrices listed Canada and Switzerland as the two most livable countries in the world. We are a people blessed. However, when we give thanks for those blessings, we should also pause and reflect. Yes, we are the most livable country in the world, but it certainly does not mean that we are perfect. It definitely does not mean that we cannot do better. Let me provide some context.

There is probably no more beautiful sight in our country than when we look through the window of a maternity ward and see all the newborns. Think of the little girls and project out to the point in time when they become young women and they enter the workforce. If the status quo does not change, if it is maintained, what will they encounter? They will be paid 75% of what those little boys will be paid. How is that possible in our Canada? How is that just? That seems to say that we value women at 75% of what we value men.

It is not just as a society how we value women; it is also how we treat women. Once again, when we look at international studies, we find that Canada is ranked as the most peaceful country on the planet. It looks at state violence, interpersonal violence, and once again uses various matrices. However, when we dive into the Canadian figures, we find in the under 30 age bracket there is a very large portion of those violent acts. Most people would assume that it is young men committing acts of violence against other young men, but in fact, that assumption is incorrect. Young Canadian women are 1.9 times more likely to be the victims of violence than young Canadian men.

What about the sanctuary of home and hearth? Seventy per cent of the victims of domestic violence in Canada are women and girls. Eighty per cent of the victims of partner homicide are women. If we really want to dive into some darker statistics, all we have to do is look at the statistics in our indigenous communities.

Young indigenous women in Canada are five times more likely to be the victims of violence than young men. Yes, we are lucky enough to live in one of the best countries in the world, Canada, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

That is why, in November 2017, we launched our national action plan on women, peace, and security. We are showing leadership on this on the world stage. In February, we committed to providing $2 billion for our feminist international development policy. In June, at the G7 summit in Charlevoix, together with our G7 partners we announced historic funding of $3.8 billion for the education of women and girls in crisis and conflict situations.

I have had the opportunity over the years to travel into war zones and civil war zones. I have seen how hatreds are nurtured and are stirred up. I have seen how conflict and violence are planned out and executed, and I have seen the consequences. Humanity has an incredible capacity for violence, destruction and bloodshed. However, it is not, in fact, humanity, and I will say something that is perhaps politically difficult but correct: It is mankind. Mankind has an incredible capacity for violence, destruction and bloodshed. When I have travelled into war zones or postwar zones, I have seen the men—it is men—who commit the horrors, and often it is women and children who bear the brunt of the suffering.

In the summer of 2005, just off the peak of the genocide in Darfur, I travelled into Darfur to the IDP camp, the internally displaced persons camp, of El Fasher. I listened to the horrific stories of women who had survived Janjaweed attacks on their villages. Most often these villages were devoid of men. Older women and children were massacred. Younger women and girls were rounded up and their testimonies were horrific and gut-wrenching.

When I left El Fasher, I noticed outside the perimeter of the camp what appeared to be villas behind the walls. I asked the driver what those structures might be. At first he was reluctant to tell me, but I did not stop asking questions. Finally, he said that they were harems that belonged to peacekeepers who selected the most beautiful of the young women and girls in the displaced persons camps.

That was just over a decade ago. However, crimes against humanity and genocides are not just something that we read about in history books and pledge “never again” during solemn commemorations on Parliament Hill. It has happened on our watch.

In 2016, at the time that I chaired the citizenship and immigration committee, the committee undertook an extraordinary summer hearing in order to hear from the survivors of the Yazidi genocide, including Nadia Murad. It was the first time that a warning to the viewing public was necessary on CPAC due to the nature of the testimony that we were about to hear.

Later that evening, I spent some time with Nadia in my office. We became friends. I am so grateful and thankful that with her engagements with members of Parliament we were able to, in a non-partisan, collective way, lay the political tracks to acknowledge this genocide in this House and to bring 1,200 Yazidi survivors to Canada. How encouraging it was that on such a fundamentally critical issue of humanity we were able to rise above our conditioned partisanship in this place and do what was right for the Yazidis and Yazidi women.

When we had those hearings, I also thought that we should have hearings into the developing situation in Myanmar and Rohingya people. Crimes against humanity and genocide are predictable. These hearings took place in the summer of 2016. We are now at the end of the summer of 2018. Just today the House unanimously voted to call what happened a crime against humanity and genocide.

What happened between that committee hearing in 2016 and 2018? Hundreds of thousands, almost a million, Rohingya are in refugee camps in Bangladesh. Thousands of young Rohingya women have no families, because they have been massacred, have no villages to return to because they have been razed, and have no possessions other than one: babies, the progeny of ethnic cleansing and mass rapes.

Clearly, crimes against humanity and genocide, these horrors, continue in our world and on our watch. It is not something that happened in the past. The question then becomes, “What will we do?”

Canada has an incredible legacy of bringing peace to the world. We have our Pearsonian legacy of peacekeeping. Prime minister Brian Mulroney took the lead in the Commonwealth on the fight against apartheid. The treaty on the prohibition of land mines is called the Ottawa Treaty due to the hard work of Canadians and the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy.

I was honoured to be in Canada's delegation at the 2005 U.N. World Summit when former prime minister Paul Martin laid out the concept of R2P, the responsibility to protect. Canada has shown, over and over, that we have the capacity to think outside the political box and to come up with innovative ways to find peace.

Our current Minister of Foreign Affairs announced the Elsie initiative, which will increase the participation of women in peace operations. This weekend, she will co-host, with the EU foreign minister, a global gathering of female foreign ministers. What an opportunity to demonstrate Canadian leadership.

Historically, Canada has and continues to demonstrate the political determination to make a difference internationally. I believe it is time for Canada to step forward once again, and to lead.

We can be at the forefront in building institutions, a department of peace, which will foster a culture of peace domestically and internationally. Let us begin by passing Motion No. 163 and create the institution of an ambassador for women, peace and security, and finally give substance to our commitment to UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague what the proposed ambassador will do that would be different from the peace and stabilization operations program director general Ms. Larisa Galadza, who has 63 staff within her department, who has $450 million worth of program expenses that are directly, and already stated by the government, used to execute the women, peace and security agenda.

How will the ambassador function within the operating structure that is outlined in five pages of detail in the document entitled, “Gender Equality: A Foundation for Peace--Canada’s National Action Plan 2017-2022--For the Implementation of the UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security”?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have people in various places in the House and government departments who do their work because they feel passionately and strongly about these issues. I would like to thank Ms. Galadza and her team for all of their tremendous work. I am glad she has been singled out because she has done tremendous work in laying the foundations of something that has the capacity to be a game changer.

Our committee on foreign affairs did a study two years ago that proposed a number of resolutions, and as part of that package, one of the final resolutions was for every government department to have a person engaged with this file on women, peace and security.

An ambassador would have an opportunity to bring cohesion and to do this in a way that is not just reactive, looking at what happened over the past year, but works proactively.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that the NDP supports this motion in principle. However, this motion that seeks to appoint a women, peace and security ambassador does not include a budget.

The motion seeks to promote research and studies relating to root causes of violent conflict, support the implementation of education, training and counselling in non-violent conflict resolution, and work on launching national projects and programs, among other things.

How could an ambassador accomplish all that if no financial framework is added to the budget? For now, the motion does not mention anything about funding.

Can the hon. member explain to me what type of funding might be associated with this motion and how much? Can he tell me whether the government is considering proceeding with this in order to move beyond good intentions?