David Anderson

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member might know better than to ask that question.

The contribution that we are making right now is unfortunately far inferior to the one we were making in the previous government. The Liberals have pulled our jets off. We know that they are not providing air support. They are telling us that they are not involved in combat. We know that they have thrown troops onto the front lines without the protection they need from our air forces. It is unfortunate that they say one thing out of one side of their mouth and do something else.

We just had a discussion over the last few days about jets and how the Liberals are fooling around with our CF-18s. Even though we should be using them in the Middle East, they have pulled them back. They refuse to use the equipment that we have. Then they come in trying to create what they call a “capability gap” in order to try to convince Canadians that they need to buy something else because they made an election promise. Therefore, I do not think we will take any lectures from them about the money or the commitment that they have made to our military.

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

It has been an interesting afternoon for me as listened to the debate. I was fascinated to hear my NDP colleague just say that for all intents and purposes, ISIS has committed genocide, but we just cannot bring ourselves to call it that. What concerned me even more was the position the Liberals have taken this afternoon. We heard the member for Spadina—Fort York give a number of very extreme comments about us. I guess he does not understand that we had the largest numbers of immigrants to our country ever when we were in government, so I am not sure what he was trying to imply.

One of the things that really concerned me this afternoon was the Liberals' interest in actually trying to use John Kerry's statement to justify their position. I just want to take a couple of minutes before I get into my speech to talk about his statement.

He is very clear in the statement. He talks about his purpose being to assert that in his judgment Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups. He goes on to talk about Daesh executing Christians solely because of their faith, saying it has massacred hundreds of Shia Turkmen and Shabaks at Tal Afar and Mosul just because of who they were. We know that, in areas under its control, it has made a systematic effort to destroy the cultural heritage of ancient communities. He talks later about one element of genocide as being the intent to destroy an ethnic or religious group in whole or in part. That is actually the definition the Minister of Foreign Affairs quoted in the House about an hour ago. It is interesting that John Kerry has that in his statement. He talks about knowing that Daesh has given its victims a choice between abandoning their faith or being killed. Clearly, he is talking about that being genocide.

Then, toward the end, he talks about being neither judge nor prosecutor, which is the quote the Liberals like. However, that is in the context of the fact that we know this is genocide, and now we need to go find the perpetrators and convict them of that. I wish the Liberals would quit misusing that quote this afternoon. People who are paying attention to this know they have no credibility when they do that.

Let us talk a little about how we got here. ISIS developed out of al Qaeda in the late 1990s. It showed up in areas around Iraq. In 2011, the group started to kind of push into Syria when the conflict there began to expand. It was led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi at the time. In 2013, it broke away or was kicked out of al-Qaeda and was renamed ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh, as people refer to it.

It is a Sunni jihadist group that wanted to wage war in the area. The interesting thing is that, from some of the figures we see, between 27,000 and 31,000 people from a number of countries have travelled to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS. I heard one of my colleagues a little earlier talking about the challenge with finding jobs for young people, but for some bizarre reason, people have come from other countries to join this group.

It capitalized on a number of things, particularly a deteriorating security situation in Iraq, where the Iraqi government was reluctant to acknowledge it was losing control in the country and did not act on the revolt soon enough. The government had been put in place and it was supposed to be inclusive. It was supposed to bring the other minority groups in, so both Sunnis and Shiites could work together. Rather than do that, it isolated the Sunni communities. Certainly, political disenfranchisement followed from that, which allowed ISIS to begin to recruit easily.

It was a bit of a surprise to most of the world to see how ISIS seemed to come out of nowhere in 2014, but certainly it had been working for years. It was severely underestimated at that time. Therefore, its expansion was not met with the appropriate use of power at the time to stop it before it really moved ahead. The provisional authority in Iraq was not particularly helpful because its sentiments and the provisions it had taken had actually basically brought the population to a point that it was not supporting the government.

Throughout the last few years, ISIS has had significant financial resources, generated through taxation in local areas, illicit oil sales, and lots of ransom, extortion, and smuggling.

We heard a little earlier about some of the consequences of what ISIS has done. I want to try to put a human face on this. There are a couple of groups that have been specifically targeted by ISIS, and I think we need to talk about that when we are talking about genocide. One of the main conditions for genocide is that groups are targeted specifically. Certainly, we can say that about the Yazidis and about the Assyrian Christians.

In 2014, there was a very rapid expansion of ISIL. In August 2014, it started pushing into the Sinjar district in Nineveh province. This is the Yazidis' homeland. It is their sacred ground. It is the place they have been for many years.

However, in August 2014, as ISIS pushed in there, the massacres and the pressure on the Yazidi people took place.

Early in August, 5,000 Yazidi men were killed and 4,000 were missing. As the conflict arose, women were captured, children were taken, people were killed, raped, and abducted, and about 40,000 to 50,000 Yazidis were trapped on Sinjar mountain. They probably all would have been slaughtered, as my colleague pointed out earlier, just because they were Yazidis if there had not been international intervention. A U.S.-initiated coalition began air strikes in early August. With the help of the air strikes and Kurdish officials in the area, a corridor was cleared and 35,000 out of 50,000 Yazidis actually fled through that corridor and were able to get out of there. Unfortunately, they had to leave their homeland, but that corridor prevented them from being wiped out. There would have been wholesale slaughter had they been left there. However, for those people who were left, life was hell.

Our minister said earlier that the definition of genocide is an intention to kill a group just because it is a group.

I think we have to conclude that the treatment of the young men who were captured, the boys who were then indoctrinated into the ISIL ideology, the young girls who were taken as wives, sold and taken as wives by someone else, raped multiple times, the women who were taken and sold in the slave markets that were set up, was because they were targeted specifically for being part of this group. Certainly, the hatred for this group is why they were targeted by ISIS. That, to me, qualifies as a major reason why this would be called “genocide”.

The land of the Assyrian Christians, who were the first people in the world as a nation to convert to Christianity, was partitioned after World War I and Assyrian Christians have been spread out among three or four nations for the last 100 years. Certainly the Nineveh plains region is their home. Again, they were driven out of their homes. They were driven out of their towns, and approximately 500,000 refugees had to flee. In June 2014, when Mosul fell, Christian houses were ID'd.

Again, we start to hear some of the reasons why we could call this a genocide. People were identified because of who they were, because of the group they belonged to. All 45 Christian churches in Mosul have been destroyed. They were targeted specifically because they were Christian.

There were beheadings. There were rapes. Interestingly enough, there were crucifixions. If people would not convert, they were crucified.

In 2003, there were one million Christians in Iraq. Today, there are around 150,000 Christians left. That seems to me that people are being targeted for who they are.

This is not a distant issue for either the Yazidi people or the Assyrian Christian community. No family has been left untouched. Some people, and I have met some of them, have had a dozen or more family members killed or kidnapped because of this conflict. This is not a distant thing for them. It is very much an issue of the heart.

We can debate today about crimes against humanity, but when we know people in those communities, it is always much closer than that. I think that, today, it is shameful for the government to say it is not for us to decide. Instead, we hear the minister talking about writing a letter. That is going to be their response.

They know that when individual ethnic communities are targeted for annihilation, that is the definition of genocide. The government is failing to protect these people. Trying to be all things to all people, as it has done again in its new office of everything, ensures that no one gets anything of substance.

Genocide involves targeting specific groups. The Liberals' refusal to even acknowledge that there are such categories that deserve protection means that the Canadian government will be of little use to anyone in the future when we see these kinds of conflicts. It is a sad situation and the consequence of a government that knows nothing about moral equivalence.

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have ever heard a clearer example of how moral relativism can paralyze a national government.

I wonder if the member opposite could comment on this statement:

My purpose in appearing before you today is to assert that, in my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yezidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims. Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions....

What is it about that statement that the minister opposite does not understand? That is a statement made by John Kerry expressing the United States' position on the nature of Daesh and the nature of the genocide. It has declared it a genocide. I can read him a quote by the representative from the House of Representatives who brought the motion forward. He stated that this should finally end the discussion about whether this is genocide or not.

To be honest, the member opposite is misleading the House when he quotes selectively from John Kerry's remarks and does not use the part that I just read to him.

[Consular Affairs, June 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Chinese government has its way with the Liberal government. It tells our Prime Minister when he can meet with them, and it berates Canadians while the Minister of Foreign Affairs stands meekly off to the side.

If the Liberals want to stand up for Canadians, they could start with Kevin and Julia Garratt. After almost two years of being threatened, harassed, and living under phony charges, it is time for them to be freed.

When will the Liberals tell the Chinese government to quit playing games with the lives of Kevin and Julia Garratt, and bring them home?

[Petitions, June 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions that call on the government to give serious consideration to Iraqi Christians who have lost their hope of getting back home, to initiate a special program to immediately target and evacuate a reasonable number of these people from neighbouring countries and to find a safe haven for them with international protection.

[Petitions, June 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions on two subjects.

The first is a petition to recognize preborn children as separate victims when harmed or killed during attacks against their mother.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to pass legislation that would recognize preborn children as separate victims.

[Business of Supply, May 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we have a motion before us today with a few basic points, and it seems to me that conscience rights for health care professionals are a fundamental freedom, and I argue that they are guarded and protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the failure to protect those conscience rights within our health care system cannot do anything but damage our health care system.

We have a private member's bill, Bill C-268, that addresses these issues and specifically talks about giving people the opportunity to be able to exercise their freedom. I appreciate the minister's attention to this bill. Earlier today, though, she said that this does not create a duty that was not there before. I would argue that actually it does, because this is new ground. This is completely new ground that we are going into. There has never been an expectation in the medical community before that health care providers need to participate in causing death. There are new duties being created here that are not being addressed by Bill C-14 that need to be. We need to stop, take a look at it, and then try to reapply some of those things that are important in terms of conscience rights.

[Business of Supply, May 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that is difficult to reconcile. When the member is saying the majority agree, I do not know that I would agree with that. However, that does not negate the obligation and the requirement to have conscience rights for those who do not. For the majority who are agreeing, obviously that is not an issue for them, but that is not what we are talking about today.

We are talking about that group of people, whether it is a minority or a majority, who have said, “I am involved in the medical profession. I do not want to participate in this. I am not prepared to do that”. I do not know that it is so difficult in this day and age to be able to provide that opportunity for people to say, “I'm backing out of this. There are other people who have made a choice that they will participate and take part in this”, and allow them to do that as well. I do not think it is a difficult decision to make.

We actually have Bill C-268 by one of our members that talks specifically about the provisions that would be acceptable and very useful in that situation.

[Business of Supply, May 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I am a little confused as are some people here with the back and forth. Conservatives take Bill C-14 very seriously and we want to debate it. I was surprised a little earlier when it seemed the Liberals wanted us to go all night, through the night. I assume that means they would like to speak during the day and then leave the opposition to speak at night when supposedly no one is listening. I think a reasonable compromise was suggested a couple of minutes ago, which is that we extend the hours to midnight, during which time we would have serious debate on this issue.

That is why we are here today. It is interesting that the notion of freedom of conscience seems to be coming up more and more in our society. In the last couple of weeks, I have crossed paths with it in discussions separate from discussions around Bill C-14.

Yesterday, at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, someone spoke about working with persecuted minorities and the question came up about what role freedom of conscience plays.

Last week, there was a forum in town about making the world safer for diversity. Dr. Os Guinness talked about how freedom of conscience has always been properly understood as the very first right. We can talk about life, liberty, and happiness, but without freedom of conscience, none of those other things actually exist in reality.

Everybody has beliefs that are important to them. I guess it is a common misconception we have that others have beliefs and I am the one who is unbiased. Each of us brings valid perceptions to these discussions and in our culture, until recently, it seemed that we were generally of the opinion that no one has the right to force anyone to work against their own beliefs.

It seems as we focus more and more on rights and less and less on responsibilities, we find ourselves pressured and I think we have to admit that we often find ourselves pressuring others on their values of conscience and the core values that people hold. It is beginning to affect every area of our culture. With the Carter decision, this has come to the forefront, because it is no longer just perceived discrimination that it is impacting, but it comes right down to the court's decision that having the right to kill oneself is a charter right.

I will take a bit of time to look at the Carter decision. It was a reversal of a previous decision, the Rodriguez decision. The court ruled that we now have, as Canadian citizens, a charter right to kill ourselves and we have the right to have others help us. There are very few guidelines that the court put on that decision. It talked about how the condition had to be irremediable and a grievous condition, basically beyond the person's decision to suffer through it. I could go into the criteria for that, which perhaps I will do a little later.

While the court decided one decision, it created a whole host of other complications. One of them, of course, is the call to reconcile physicians' and patients' rights. The question we are dealing with today is what role others have to play or do they play in that decision to prematurely end life.

Bill C-14 does not solve that. I was glad to hear the minister acknowledge that earlier. Conscience issues are becoming the biggest issues around Bill C-14. In this case, I would argue that the government has failed Canadians.

There is a legitimate question to be asked and I am surprised that it has not even been discussed—it is not discussed in other countries either—as to why medical personnel are expected to be involved at all. However, they are, and even though they are, most of them do not want to participate. The medical personnel whom I have talked to are not accepting of or enthusiastic about this. I have spoken with a number of doctors who say that if they are forced to participate in this, they are willing to leave the country, that they are not going to participate. For those of us who live in rural areas and have a very small supply of medical care, it is a frightening thing to hear one's doctor say he or she is prepared to leave if this is forced on him or her.

I want to talk about the protection of conscience in Bill C-14. The preamble states:

Whereas everyone has freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

Whereas nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion;...

That is the preamble, which has no legal impact. There is no content within Bill C-14 that provides this balance.

The Senate committee heard some great testimony. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms said:

...the Court discussed and reiterated the conscience and religious rights of medical practitioners, stating that, “nothing in the declaration of invalidity which we propose to issue would compel physicians to provide assistance in dying.”

However, then it went on to say, “the Charter rights of patients and physicians will need to be reconciled. Thus, it is apparent that the Court intended Parliament’s legislative response to address the issue of medical practitioners’ conscience rights. Bill C-14 fails to do so.”

It is interesting to me that Bill C-14 actually provides protection for participants, but it does not provide protection for those who do not want to participate. There is an exemption for medical assistance in dying where it says that no medical practitioner commits homicide if they provide a person with medical assistance. It says that no person is a party to homicide if they do anything for the purpose of aiding in that. Then it says that for greater certainty, if the person has any reasonable, even mistaken, belief about any fact that is an element of the exemption, they have no legal responsibility for that.

I just point out that protection for participants has been included for those people who choose to participate, even if they are mistaken in what they have done. I can find no similar parallel protection for those who conscientiously object.

Some have said to pass it on to the provinces. We just heard that a minute ago from my colleague from the NDP. I would argue this is not a provincial issue. If it is, there will be a dozen different scenarios in this country and then the courts will get even more involved than they have been. It is a Criminal Code issue. Why would we give legislative protection in a bill to those who want to participate and then argue that Parliament has no right to legislate protection for those who do not want to take part?

The executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society said at the Senate committee:

...what our members cannot do is perform or participate in what is referred to as medical assistance in dying. To be clear, by participation, I also mean playing a role in causing death by arranging for the procedure to be carried out by someone else through referral.

He went on to say that the current preamble respects the personal conviction of health care providers, but it does not have any legal weight, and that no foreign jurisdiction in the world has legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia and then forced their health care workers in hospitals, nursing homes, and hospices to act against their conscience, their mission, or their values. He said that to force providers to act in this way in Canada would actually be to violate section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is necessary that the federal government legislate protection of conscience rights for health care professionals in order to respect the charter and to protect our existing health care system. Federal legislation would send a clear signal to provinces, organizations, and the courts that the right of conscience must be protected.

I argue that because medical personnel and supervisory groups cannot and will not agree, Parliament should set those guidelines, and they should be set in the Criminal Code.

A minister said a little earlier today that the protection is in the charter, not in the Criminal Code, but I think that is exactly the concern that Canadians have. The charter interpretation has gone 180° on the issue of assisted suicide, and there is nothing keeping that from happening as well on section 2 of the charter.

We need conscience rights. What are they? They are the right not to participate, the right not to be forced to refer. They are a fundamental freedom guaranteed by section 2 of the charter.

We need to protect the health care system. As I mentioned earlier, I have been told by physicians that they are prepared to leave if they are going to be forced into this, and they are not prepared to go against their own conscience. The Ontario college is making a big mistake in thinking that it can force doctors to do this against their conscience. I am not sure why it thinks it needs to control others who are just trying to do the right thing.

There were other suggestions that we heard a little earlier. For example, what is wrong with allowing patients to transfer their medical care to a doctor of choice? How about a directory of doctors so people can identify doctors who provide such services? We live in an electronic age, that should not be difficult. It would give Canadians confidence they could find medical personnel who would not be acting contrary to their care.

We need to protect the charter right of health care professionals. We need to make it a criminal offence to intimidate or coerce the health care professional to take part directly or indirectly in assisted suicide or euthanasia and to make it a criminal offence to dismiss anyone from employment for taking that position.

As I wrap up, I just want to come back to the point that no person should be put in a position where his or her private rights, which are guaranteed by the charter, are removed by force. Nothing is more fundamental than being able to live out that which we believe, especially if that belief is aimed at supporting and preserving life.

[Baha'i Community in Iran, May 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will mark eight years of imprisonment for seven innocent Baha’i religious leaders. Their only crime is freely practising their faith in Iran and serving the needs of their fellow believers.

On May 14, 2008, morning raids tore these innocent men and women from their homes and families and began a long eight-year charade of false charges, legal delay, and blatant disregard for Iran's own penal code. In fact, these innocent men and women are now well overdue for conditional release, but the regime continues to ignore international voices as it pursues its long-standing cradle-to-grave persecution of the Baha’i minority.

Tomorrow's day of outcry is an attempt to change that. The case of the Baha’i seven is just one more example of Iran's total disregard for the rule of law and the fundamental rights of its own people. I encourage all members to add their voices to mine and countless others around the world when we declare that enough is enough. It is time for the Iranian regime to adhere to its own laws and release the innocent Baha’i seven immediately.