David Anderson

[Petitions, February 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from petitioners across Canada who are calling on the Government of Canada and the United Nations to act to ensure that Christians and other minorities living in Iraq and Syria have their rights protected.

The petitioners are asking specifically that they work to ensure that current and future legal frameworks in those countries promote and protect the equal and inalienable rights of all citizens and that they safeguard the dignified and continued improvement of living conditions for all minorities, but especially for returning refugees and internally displaced peoples, and that they identify and equip religious leaders and faith-based organizations so that they can play a constructive and central role in reconciling and rebuilding both Syrian and Iraqi societies.

[Committees of the House, February 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to comment on the Conservative Party's dissenting report on Motion No. 103.

We have given voice to moderate Muslims' concerns about the implications of Islamophobia, both as a term and as a concept. Our report includes five sections, one addressing the Liberals' assertion that we face a rising climate of hate and fear in Canada, one addressing the over two dozen different definitions of “Islamophobia”, and another on religious discrimination in Canada. We also address the issue of data collection, and end with the assertion that solutions can be found not in a whole-of-government approach, but in a whole-of-Canada approach.

We are encouraging relevant communities to come together to solve the challenges that we will be facing together in the coming years. Our hope is that this report can play a positive role in addressing very real issues of discrimination faced by many Canadians, including Muslims.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2018]

With regard to the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion: (a) what is the current annual budget for the Office; (b) how much of the budget referred to in (a) is earmarked for (i) human rights and indigenous affairs, (ii) inclusion and religious freedoms, (iii) democracy, (iv) other expenses; (c) what isthe number of full-time equivalents, along with the associated Treasury Board classification, employed in the Office; (d) what are the current Treasury Board salary ranges associated with the classifications referred to in (c); (e) what is the number of full-time equivalents, along with the associated Treasury Board classification assigned to (i) human rights and indigenous affairs, (ii) inclusion and religious freedoms, (iii) democracy, (iv) other; (f) as of November 27, 2017, what projects receive funding through the Office, broken down by (i) organization, (ii) location of project, (iii) project description; (g) what is the breakdown of projects referred to in (f), broken down by (i) human rights and indigenous affairs, (ii) inclusion and religious freedoms, (iii) democracy, (iv) other expenses; and (h) what evaluations or criteria are used to determine if an organization has their project approved or reapproved for funding?

[Human Rights, December 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, we reflected on the status of global human rights.

Human Rights Day was established in 1948 in the shadow of the Second World War, and commemorates the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration sets an international standard for fundamental rights. Events of 2017 have reminded us that these are far from guaranteed for countless people around the world.

In Myanmar, violent ethnic persecution has forced hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh, with little hope for a safe return, their crime being nothing more than their identity.

Throughout 2017, members of the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights have studied the genocide faced by Christians and Yazidis; human rights violations in Burundi, South Sudan, Latin America, and Somalia; as well as the disturbing trends of human trafficking and child slavery.

These atrocities and many others cannot be pushed aside with the new year. Canadian leadership is needed now more than ever.

[Petitions, December 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition on behalf of some folks in my riding and just outside who would say that whereas equality means that all people are treated fairly, without discrimination, and whereas individuals holding Christian beliefs in Canada are experiencing discrimination and some laws are contrary to the practice of their religious or conscience beliefs, they therefore call on the House of Commons to exercise their religious beliefs and conscience rights, both in their private and public acts, without coercion, constraint, or discrimination.

They call on the government to amend section 241 of the Criminal Code, on medical assistance in dying, and the Civil Marriage Act to provide Christians and their faith-based institutions with protection from their provisions. Second, they call on the government to enact a policy to provide a review of any new legislation that may be brought in future by the government to ensure that it does not impinge upon the religious rights of Christians, in accordance with the historic continuity of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Petitions, December 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of 7,456 residents of Canada who call upon the Government of Canada and the United Nations to ensure that Christians and other minorities living in Iraq and Syria enjoy citizenship with equal rights, that they are provided with dignified living conditions, and that Christians are given a prominent role in reconciling and rebuilding society.

They call on the Government of Canada and the United Nations to do three things: ensure that the current and future legal frameworks in Syria and Iraq fully promote and protect the equal and inalienable rights of their citizens, irrespective of race or religion; safeguard the dignified and continued improvement of living conditions for all citizens, but especially for returning refugees and the internally displaced, including through the provision of adequate housing, education, and jobs; and identify and equip religious leaders and faith-based organizations to play a constructive and central role in reconciling and rebuilding both Syria and Iraqi societies.

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, government members have talked all day about the fact that they think there is fear related to this whole issue. There actually is, but it does not have anything to do with us. It has to do with Canadians feeling less safe. The folks opposite have tried to turn this into a budget issue, which they have gone on about all day, but it really is not a budget issue.

The perception Canadians have of the government is that its heart is just not in protecting them. It does not have the same kind of commitment to protecting Canadians as there has been in the past. Therefore, it is not a budget-related issue; it is a commitment-related issue, and the government has not made that commitment. That showed up in a few places.

The Liberals are not proactive in this at all. When we hear their answers in the House, we know they are not really taking this seriously. On television, the public safety minister talked about how he knew we could not change these people's minds, but the Liberals would let them in anyway and work with them on these little projects. That makes people across the country very uncomfortable.

We have heard we cannot defend our borders. We know that. We have talked about this in the House many times. The Liberal government is incapable of defending our borders, telling people that if they want to cross into Canada, they should go to border crossings. We have also seen massive payouts to people who have been convicted of terrorist activities.

Could my colleague comment on that and does he think this is a matter of a commitment from the heart that the government has refused to make so far, or if it is really a budget-related issue, like those members have been trying to sell all day?

[Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act, November 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here today to speak to this issue. I am very happy with my colleague for bringing this forward. It is an important initiative, and unfortunate that we need it. There are a number of other ways to approach some of these issues, basically various levels of dealing with it, and we have heard a little about some of them tonight. I will talk a bit about that later.

I guess one of the things that would give us a little more comfort is if we felt that the current government was actually willing to deal with these issues seriously. As far as we can see, in the two years it has been in power, it is not. There is no indication that it would actually treat seriously the issues my colleague has brought forward, issues such as radicalization and dealing with the connections to culture, religion, and education. In fact, we hear in the Liberals' speeches tonight that they are just not willing to do that.

Another example of the government's unwillingness to deal with this seriously is the way it claims to be handling these returning ISIS fighters, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has said that basically we are not going to be able to change these folks and we are coming late to this fight anyway. Still the Liberals come and talk about how they are going to have these programs.

Yesterday or the day before, the Prime Minister said in the House that he believes he can deprogram ISIS fighters when they come back. As we have pointed out, some of these folks are coming back deliberately, coming back here to stay and then create trouble later. I do not think poetry sessions and sitting in counselling sessions is going to change that in their minds. The government is not taking the issue of terrorism seriously. It is not really taking the issue of radicalization seriously. We have seen that at one of the committees I am on, as well.

I am very thankful that we were able to pass the Magnitsky Act earlier this fall. That was an important part of this whole piece, and is something some of us worked on last Parliament. Thanks to our colleague from Manitoba and one of our senators from the other place, we were able to bring that in here, and then the government finally came to its senses and supported it.

However, Canadians do not have confidence that the government is going to do the right thing. Another example of that would be in its relationship with Iran. The member opposite asked earlier if there are examples of places where we can see this kind of radicalization that could be taking place. Obviously, over the years, Iran has been listed as a state sponsor of terror for a number of years by a number of countries. Again, the relationship this government insists on having with Iran is just naive. It thinks that somehow it is going to change its direction by cuddling up to it. That is not going to happen. It is very disturbing. We see Iran trying to stretch itself out in the Middle East, and the trouble it is causing in places like Yemen where it has gone in. It is trying to create as much of a conflict there as it possibly can.

For those of us who have been working on the religious freedom issues over the years, another place we see radicalization has taken place is through Wahhabism that has come out of Saudi Arabia. If the money that has been put into spreading that ideology around the world had been stopped 20 or 30 years ago, we would not find ourselves in the situation we do right now.

I respect the bill that the member has brought forward, but we do have several levels of dealing with these things. I mentioned state sponsors of terrorism. I think we have two of them listed still, which are Iran and Syria. Other countries list places like North Korea and Sudan. There is also another level of dealing with these issues, which is to list the terrorist entities. The government on the other side seems to say that this is not really a serious issue or whatever.

If we take a look at the number of listed entities that Canada has listed, it is well over 50. These are 50 terrorist organizations that function around the world. It is naive to think that not one of them is taking money and putting it into kind of parallel organizations, sister and brother organizations that may have very different names and is not trying to influence governments around the world. As my colleague has pointed out, it is the flow of money that is actually critical.

We have sanctions on countries as well. There is a third level layer of sanctions. We have over 20 countries listed on a sanctions list, and that started in the Special Economic Measures Act. Those countries had sanctions put against them for good reason. However, this bill deals specifically with the flow of money and trying to stop that flow of money. It is more than timely. It is past time that we should have brought this forward.

It does not sound as though it is going to, but I hope the government will step up and at least send the bill to committee and see if there are some changes it would like to make and we can agree to, so that the bill can go forward and become effective in the future.

The bill starts off by talking about religious, cultural, and educational institutions, and where they may play a central role in the lives of many Canadians. We know that is true. Those three components are critically important to a lot of people around the world.

The government is naive about the role that religious faith plays in many people's lives. The government—from some of the comments we have heard from some of the leadership—seems to think it is not a relevant concept for people in this time and age. That just shows naivety about what is going on around the rest of the world, where the majority of people are informed and driven by some very serious faith considerations and beliefs in their own lives. That is why I appreciate the member bringing this forward in those terms.

We also know that education plays an incredibly important role around the world. Typically, if an individual is going to try to influence people and is going to spend money doing that, that individual is likely going to put that money into some sort of either faith institution or educational institution in order to try to change people's thinking. The bill specifically addresses those issues and those components.

It goes on to say “some foreign states and some entities and individuals abroad provide those institutions with funding through donations or gifts”. We understand that money travels around the world. People who hold to different beliefs and principles are willing to spend their money and commit it to causes, and for the most part they are good causes. That is why Canadians contribute to charities. That is why we are known as some of the most generous people in the world, because people are willing to make those contributions to things that they think are important.

That is the good side of the equation, but there are also people who do not have those same benevolent attitudes and who want to use their money in another way, which is to bring down other governments, other institutions, and other states. This bill addresses that.

It says “funding could flow from foreign states, entities or individuals that support or promote extremism, radicalization or terrorism and that seek to influence those institutions”. That is where we believe that the Parliament of Canada needs to step in. It is important that we do.

This bill has a number of provisions to it. Its purpose is to prevent an individual, an entity, or a foreign state that does support or is associated with radicalization or terrorism being able to fund those institutions around the world through either donations or gifts. It is a pretty simple explanation. There is a schedule that could be put in place that would deal with that, and then that would address the issue of those states, those individuals, those foreign entities trying to have influence in Canada when they should not do that.

It is incredibly important that we address this issue. My NDP colleague said that money is really not the issue here, but I would disagree with him. The only way to actually diminish the activity is to cut off funding and reduce the money. Then we can look at some of the other causes, some of the other things that are influencing people to become radicalized. As long as foreign money is allowed to come into a country, whether it is Canada or another country, it gives people the capacity to influence, to tear down institutions, and then to do the damage that they really would like to see happen.

There are a number of provisions to this legislation that might be worth going through.

The bill would apply to a foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule or any senior official or member of the official's immediate family. We often see a senior official who is functioning and then family members are doing something off in another direction or whatever.

It is good that we have followed the lead of other countries. My colleague mentioned countries such as Australia, which did this very specifically to deal with an issue it had in that country. Norway and Austria are other countries that have acted on this. Others such as the United States and the United Kingdom are thinking about it.

It is a good idea that Canada thinks about it as well. It would be a great help to many people around the world. It would be a great help to many Canadians if the government would treat this seriously, support the bill, and send it to committee, and then we can have further discussion about it.

[Access to Information Act, November 27th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across talked about the concerns on the quality of debate. I was very intrigued and interested in my colleague's speech today. We have talked about major reforms that the Liberals promised, and my colleague said he did not have time to go into them. We can look at things that have failed, such as electoral reforms, Standing Order reforms, tax reforms, reforms in the military, and now accountability. I think Canadians probably expect the same kinds of results we have seen in so many of these other areas.

One of the reasons we will see that is because of what we saw today in question period. We had a minister who was questioned a dozen times on one question, and all he had to do was say “No”. He did not have to say yes or no, just “No”.

Could my colleague address that issue of just how systemic this kind of refusal to be accountable to the Canadian people is in the government? Is that the reason why so many of these promised reforms have never turned out?

[Ethics, November 27th, 2017]

Just clear it up.