Ali Ehsassi

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we appreciate that the Yazidis are facing terrible circumstances in Iraq. However, it is good to bear in mind that they live in inaccessible regions of Iraq. In addition to that, any assistance we do provide could make them more vulnerable within that country. Therefore, it is critical that we know what we are doing on the ground in that region to make sure that the good we are doing is done in a responsible fashion, so yes, we are speaking to experts on the ground.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, listening to the debate as it has unfolded in this House today and to the Minister of Immigration, the government actually is discussing these issues with other countries that are acting on the ground in Iraq.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question. Of course, as you know full well, the government is committed to taking action on this very critical issue. Having said that, as you can imagine we would like to act responsibly, and acting responsibly will require some time.

First we have to review the committee report prepared by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. That particular report was released last week.

In addition to that, as you know full well, IRCC sent a team to Iraq. That team just yesterday or this morning returned to Canada. We have to examine what the members have to say and what their particular advice is.

Finally, as you know, this government is not into going it alone. We are collaborating with our allies. We are speaking to various institutions to make sure that the response we adopt is an effective one and a robust one.

As you know, we are all concerned about the Yazidis in Iraq. However, it is well to bear in mind that the Yazidis live in inaccessible regions of Iraq.

All of these things will require a strategy, and we have to use partners on the ground to make sure that we are acting effectively.

[Business of Supply, October 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

In my office, there are two large photographs I see every day, one of former prime minister Lester B. Pearson, a former resident of my riding of Willowdale and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, and the other of General Roméo Dallaire, a Canadian hero and one of our leading and most resonant and compelling voices on issues of human rights. Both of these Canadian icons serve as constant reminders of the tremendous global leadership Canada should always strive to demonstrate on issues of human rights, human security, the rule of law, and multilateralism. It is in that spirit that I rise to speak to the opposition motion before us today.

As members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, this summer we undertook a special study on the plight of Yazidi refugees and other vulnerable populations. I deeply appreciate the urgency and the tragedy of the situation unfolding before us. This issue resonates deeply with all of us, as I know it does with my constituents and with all Canadians. We recognize the horrific fight facing the Yazidi population and the need for effective action on the international stage. We also recognize the role that Canada, in keeping with our great traditions, must play in ensuring both global and human security. In every instance, however, we understand that in order for Canada to play a significant role in advancing the causes of human rights and security, we must collaborate closely with our allies and fellow international institutions.

In the 12 months since the people of Canada decided that our foreign policy needed a new tone and direction, our government has done much to restore Canada's international standing and reputation. We have recommitted to multilateralism and the international rule of law. We have provided a model to the rest of the world in terms of our intake of Syrian refugees and also drastically increased our contributions toward the coalition to defeat Daesh. In that same vein, our response to the Yazidi genocide, while ever-evolving, demonstrates a similar commitment to responsible, engaged, robust, and multifaceted policy solutions.

Allow me to be clear. Our government unequivocally stands by the Yazidis. Like my colleague opposite, I had the chance to hear some of the horrifying and chilling testimony of Yazidi refugees over the summer, and I understand the urgency to act. In that vein, while I fully respect the motion before us today, it gets ahead of the process.

Dialogue with the appropriate partners, as well as an assessment of the situation in regions where Yazidis and other victims of Daesh are located, must take place to develop a responsible plan. This is not feasible within the time frame contained within the motion. The timeline proposed in the motion demands expedient processing of Yazidis specifically, a worthy goal but one that is operationally unrealistic and dangerous due to the complex security situation on the ground.

As the member opposite is aware, many of the most vulnerable Yazidis live in highly dangerous and inaccessible regions. Fully supporting these vulnerable populations, as such, will therefore require carefully considered legislation, not a rushed and incomplete motion such as the one before us today. It is imperative that we allow the IRCC to complete its analysis of this situation in close collaboration with our allies and partners in order to craft a truly effective course of action going forward.

Furthermore, this motion makes no mention of other vulnerable populations targeted by Daesh, including Christians, Shia Muslims, Mandaeans, Druze, Kakais, Shabak, and many more minorities in Iraq. Again, a more in-depth analysis of the situation based on knowledge on the ground and established best practices is certainly required.

Far from being inactive or passive in response to the Yazidi crisis, our government has taken concrete steps to respond to this significant issue. The Yazidi crisis is a multifaceted issue that requires a whole-of-government approach, with input from Global Affairs Canada, the Department of National Defence, Development Canada, and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

Indeed, Canada has been highly active both internationally and domestically in responding to the issue before us today.

In the international arena, for example, the Government of Canada has taken the following concrete steps, among many others, to assist the Yazidis. In June, the foreign affairs minister declared in this very chamber that Daesh was guilty of committing genocide against the Yazidi population. Similarly, the minister has continuously and forcefully advocated at the United Nations, including formal correspondence with the Security Council, in calling for greater action in response to the Yazidi crisis. Our government has also committed to increase funding to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to document human rights abuses and violations and to collect evidence and investigate serious international crimes.

Furthermore, working as part of a global coalition to combat Daesh, we have increased our military advise and assist missions and have increased humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations in Syria and northern Iraq, including the Yazidis. Our government has also tripled military training, doubled intelligence efforts, and significantly increased aid, all to protect those vulnerable to the threat of Daesh.

Also Canada, through the peace and stabilization operations program, is contributing $3.3 million to the Commission for International Justice and Accountability to investigate violations of international criminal and humanitarian law in Syria and Iraq, including of course Daesh's enslavement of thousands of Yazidi women and children who were subjected to sexual and gender-based crimes, forced marriages, and forced conversions. Finally, Canadian development assistance in Syria and northern Iraq is already helping to provide shelter, food, water, and medical services to families fleeing Mosul; and specialized services for women and girls victimized by Daesh, including women and girls from the Yazidi community.

Similarly, the government has taken significant steps to ensure that our immigration and resettlement policies are adequately responding to this crisis. For example, IRCC is continuing to monitor the situation of vulnerable persons. In response to the Yazidi genocide this month, the IRCC sent a team of observers on a fact-finding mission to northern Iraq. This is something we heard of and, of course, that mission did return to Canada yesterday, as everyone has been informed. IRCC is also reviewing the aforementioned report released on October 5 by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on its study of how Canada can best assist vulnerable groups through immigration measures. Finally, the IRCC officials are engaging in discussions with key partners on the ground, such as the UNHCR, IOM, and local authorities, on the best path forward to assist victims of atrocities perpetrated by Daesh.

I believe that everyone in this House can agree that the atrocities being committed against the Yazidis and other vulnerable populations by Daesh are unconscionable and require swift and determined action by the international community. In cases such as these, Canadian leadership and action are invaluable. I believe that our government's response to this crisis has been in keeping with this tradition of Canadian leadership, and as the situation unfolds I look forward to and expect continued robust engagement by our government.

[Chung Yeung Festival, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and join Chinese Canadians in my riding of Willowdale, and indeed from coast to shining coast, in celebrating the upcoming Chung Yeung Festival.

Also known as the Double 9 Festival, Chung Yeung provides the cherished opportunity to gather with friends and family in celebration of this ancient holiday. A time for both reflection and festivity, the Double 9 Festival connects us to our past by allowing us to honour our ancestors and elders while also celebrating the present through picnics, hikes, food, and drink.

Whether celebrating with wine or cake, I wish all those celebrating Chung Yeung a joyous and memorable weekend.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for raising that critical issue.

We think it is imperative that the Canadian public has confidence in this committee. It is significant that the Prime Minister will only make appointments to this committee after consulting with members opposite, with leaders of the opposition parties, and of course with the Senate.

The member brought up the issue of Bill C-51. I can assure him that we also had misgivings about it. For that reason, we introduced 10 amendments at the time, but of course, only three were adopted. What we have sought to do in the proposed legislation is to balance the rights and civil liberties of Canadians with security interests. I think we have struck the right balance.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The member opposite has raised the issue of accountability. I would like to remind the member that in making appointments to this committee the Prime Minister is obliged to both consult with the leaders of the opposition as well as the Senate. In so doing, it will ensure that only four members out of nine will be constituted out of members of the government.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member opposite for raising this significant issue. It is interesting to note that he is acknowledging that there was an absence of a framework in Canada previously.

To rectify the situation, we looked at models adopted by other allies, crucially, the Five Eyes. Of course, it would have been impossible for us to adopt a framework that would simply cut and paste provisions that have been adopted by the other Five Eyes. In this particular instance, obviously there are variations between our framework and those of the other Five Eyes.

What you were speaking of was the issue of accountability. You will note, should you scrutinize the proposed legislation closely—

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today in support of Bill C-22, an act to establish the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians.

The proposed legislation fulfills a key campaign promise of the 2015 election, and represents a thoughtful and long overdue modernization of Canada's security framework.

Allow me to begin by referring to the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which unambiguously referenced the overarching goal of “keeping Canadians safe”. It reads:

This goal must be pursued while protecting the rights of Canadians, and with an appreciation that threats to public security arise from many sources, including natural disasters, inadequate regulations, crime, terrorism, weather-related emergencies, and public health emergencies.

What we are discussing here today is at the intersection of defence policy, foreign policy, and national security. The rationale behind this mandate is self-evident. We live in a world of new, ever-evolving, and unprecedented security threats. Just this past March, a lone wolf attack on a Canadian Forces recruitment centre in my riding of Willowdale underscored this point. While I am grateful for the incredible bravery and professionalism the RCMP and others displayed in responding to the attack, the fact remains we are largely operating in a brave new world where groups and individuals can pose serious challenges to our safety and security.

Meeting these challenges, while maintaining our respect for the cherished rights and freedoms of Canadians, requires a robust and responsible parliamentary framework. While the previous government curiously failed to recognize this, something I can assure members I heard repeatedly on doorsteps, it is my belief that Bill C-22 rectifies the obvious gaps within our existing security framework, namely, by establishing a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. This committee would be provided extraordinary access to national security information and an unprecedented ability to scrutinize federal departments and operations. In doing so, Bill C-22 rejects the notion that we must choose between prioritizing security concerns on the one hand and respecting civil and charter rights on the other. Rather, it establishes a framework that balances both.

The issue of accountability boils down to this. Does Canada have the institutions it needs to protect the safety of Canadians, while at the same time safeguarding our rights and freedoms? Bill C-22 ensures that we can answer that question in the affirmative.

The concept of establishing a parliamentary security oversight committee is hardly novel. The idea can be traced as far back as the 1981 McDonald commission report, while more recent efforts include a 2003 Auditor General's report, recommendations from the 2004 Interim Committee of Parliamentarians on National Security, the 2005 national security committee of parliamentarians act, a 2009 recommendation from the House of Commons public safety committee, a 2011 Senate report, and private members' bills introduced in 2007, 2009, 2013, and 2014, most recently by my Liberal colleagues from Malpeque and Vancouver Quadra.

Over the past decade, these efforts were repeatedly obstructed and denied by the previous Conservative government, despite widespread support amongst experts, stakeholders, academics, non-governmental organizations, and the Canadian public. While there is no making up for this lost decade, I am proud to say that Bill C-22 finally provides Canadians with a modern and meaningful security oversight mechanism.

In keeping with our government's commitment to evidence-based decision-making, Bill C-22 notably aligns Canada's security regime with accepted international best practices. As colleagues before me have highlighted, Canada is currently the only member of the Five Eyes alliance lacking a security oversight committee that grants sitting legislators access to confidential national security information. In an era in which security threats are increasingly global and interdependent, Canada cannot afford to be an outlier on this issue. This absence of oversight has limited the ability of parliamentarians to examine national security issues in depth. The previous government argued that there was no need for parliamentarians to have access to confidential national security information. On this side of the House, we disagree. Giving parliamentarians access to such information will benefit Canadians who want their government to be open and transparent, including our national security agencies.

As Professors Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa and Kent Roach of the University of Toronto recently noted in their working paper to modernize Canada's inadequate review of national security, a robust national review framework rests on three pillars.

First is a properly resourced and empowered committee of parliamentarians with robust access to secret information, charged primarily with strategic issues, including an emphasis on efficacy review. Second is a consolidated and enhanced expert review body, a security and intelligence community reviewer or super SIRC with all-of-government jurisdiction, capable of raising efficacy issues but charged primarily with proprietary review. Third is an independent monitor of national security law, built on the U.K. and Australian models, with robust access to secret information and charged with expert analysis of Canada's anti-terrorism and national security legislation and able to work in concert with the other bodies on specific issues.

It is my belief that the bill meets these criteria. Professor Forcese would appear to agree, writing as he did that Bill C-22 represents a good bill. He goes on to say that it creates a stronger body than the U.K. and Australian equivalents and that it constitutes “a dramatic change for Canadian national security accountability”.

I believe the legislation is well intentioned, well considered, and well rounded. In particular, I would like to highlight five notable elements of the bill.

First, Bill C-22 allows the committee to analyze and study laws, policies, and operations in real time, increasing the discipline, responsiveness, and accountability of our security framework.

Second, the legislation before us tasks the committee with the invaluable capacity to monitor classified security and intelligence activities and report findings to the Prime Minister. Rather than reviewing security activities on an ad hoc and siloed department-by-department basis, Bill C-22 provides the opportunity for comprehensive security oversight.

Third, the provisions regarding ministerial discretion on limits to access to information contained within the bill are clearly delineated and follow the best practice models established by the United States, Australia, and others.

Fourth, Bill C-22 guarantees that the government will constitute a minority within the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians, thus ensuring increased accountability.

Finally, and perhaps most significant, Bill C-22 represents an important counterbalance to the sweeping powers introduced through Bill C-51. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, the bill represents the fulfillment of a key campaign pledge on the part of the government to rein in the excesses of Bill C-51, while ensuring the collective security of all Canadians. The introduction of a committee of parliamentarians tasked with overseeing Canadian security and intelligence represents a much-needed return to accountability.

The bill, however, merely represents one part of the puzzle. Our government has also committed to amending Bill C-51 to better protect the rights of assembly and protest, and to better define rules regarding terrorist propaganda, mandating statutory review of national security legislation, creating an office of community outreach and counter-radicalization, and increased consultations with Canadians from coast to coast on how best to balance security concerns and civil liberties.

This process, both within and outside Parliament, will allow us to strengthen the security and intelligence system of Canada. It will also provide Canadians with confidence that in protecting their safety and security, the government stands firmly behind their rights and freedoms.

I urge all hon. members of the House to join me in supporting the bill.

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to speak regarding the opposition motion before us today. I stand before this House to voice my strong opposition to this ill-considered and premature motion on the topic of genocide.

Allow me to begin by reminding members of this House that the march of human rights and dignity across the globe has been one of the great, albeit unfinished, success stories in the past seven decades. Central to the progress has been the entrenchment of genocide as a key principle within international humanitarian law.

Indeed, the Canadian government has always proudly advanced the cause of global human rights and human security. From sanctions against the South African apartheid regime, to the courageous actions of Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire in Rwanda, to international leadership on issues such as anti-personnel land mines, our great country has always championed the protection of vulnerable populations across the globe.

Canada and the Liberal Party have always been at the vanguard of the rights revolution, whether protecting and enshrining individual rights here at home or promoting and safeguarding human rights and security abroad.

Apart from actions of successive Canadian governments, great Canadians in modern times have made championing human rights synonymous with Canadian values. The first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bears the imprint of Professor John Humphrey. Former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, to cite another example, is universally recognized as one of the international community's foremost experts on human rights. Of course, one need also mention other individuals, such as Mr. Philippe Kirsch, who was the first president of the International Criminal Court, and, even today, one of Canada's foremost legal scholars, Ms. Jennifer Welsh, serves as the UN Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on issues of genocide and human rights.

Despite the seminal contributions of our country and many great Canadians on the development of international law, I fear that the motion proposed by the Conservative Party today is utterly bereft of a principled approach towards international law and strays from the approach of our closest allies.

The basis for which I oppose the Conservative motion is fourfold. One, genocide is a precise legal definition, and that precision is lacking in today's motion. Two, Canada cannot simply go it alone in regard to pronouncing acts of genocide and must instead act in concert with its allies and international institutions. Three, the gravity of the situation at hand behooves us to act in a sophisticated, deliberate, and meaningful manner. Four, it would greatly undermine our new-found credibility to act as effective and responsible players on the international scene should we adopt the Conservative motion.

Allow me to begin with my first objection, which is the definition of genocide.

While the term genocide conjures up chilling images, we must not forget that the term carries a precise legal definition. Precision is required because of the term's incorporation by reference in various statutes, whether it is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda or, of course, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

However, any reference to international laws and precedents surrounding genocide are curiously absent from the motion put forward today by the Conservatives. The motion operates irrespective of well-established legal structures, and therefore does little to bring justice to the victims of Daesh's brutality. This is a matter best handled by independent and international jurists, not partisan politicians.

Other legal requirements that the Conservative motion glosses over are, for example, that the 1948 convention is arguably predicated on the notion that only states may commit the crime of genocide. Of course, that is something that the motion does not address.

Another legal requirement that is glossed over by the Conservative motion is that the genocide convention clearly states that collective action is required in response to genocide. The 1948 treaty, after all, was signed by 148 nations and expressly behooved the signatories to work collectively for greater certainty, as the preamble stated, “in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required”.

On the second, the basis for my objection is that we must act in concert with our allies in international institutions. Genocide is by definition a matter of international law, and our government has rightly decided that such determinations regarding the nature of Daesh's abuses are best achieved acting in lockstep with our allies and co-operating through international organizations and mechanisms.

We know that the previous government proudly flouted its desire to not just go along in order to get along, and that it diminished the United Nations as spending too much time on itself. This aversion to multilateralism led Canada to lose its bid to win a seat at the UN Security Council for nearly a decade.

Finally, the gravity of the situation behooves us to act in a sophisticated and deliberate manner, which is precisely what our Minister of Foreign Affairs outlined in his letter to the United Nations.