Hélène Laverdière

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the interesting response my colleague gave to the question from the Liberal side, which seems to be suggesting that this is somehow an NDP tactic. I appreciated his references to the elder Trudeau's policies and to the 130 countries that are asking Canada to contribute to this effort.

I wonder if my colleague did not also find it strange that following the 2011 Liberal Party convention, that party supported a resolution that said exactly what we are now proposing.

Does my colleague not think that they are betraying their own supporters, in a way, by refusing to support a motion that says the same thing as something approved at the last Liberal convention?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am amazed that so many Order of Canada recipients have written to the Prime Minister to ask him to stop boycotting the negotiations. Those are their words.

Does my colleague not find that striking? Order of Canada recipients are people who have worked hard, shown great courage, and overcome challenges, even when it was not easy. Is it not interesting to see the contrast between all of those Order of Canada recipients and the government, which thinks that this may not work and will not be at the negotiating table?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, based on my experience in foreign affairs, there is never one simple solution to any problem. We must negotiate directly with North Korea and continue to impose sanctions, if necessary.

It is interesting because, initially, North Korea would not take a position on this proposal to negotiate a nuclear weapons disarmament convention, while Canada opposed it. North Korea was a better state player than Canada, in a sense, which is a little worrisome.

Tools like this convention can lay the groundwork for working with other countries, whether they are member countries or not. In fact, NATO has issued a document listing the positive repercussions that such a convention would have on non-signatory countries.

We saw this in the case of landmines. Some countries that were major producers and users of landmines, particularly our neighbours to the south, did not sign the convention, but it nevertheless affected them directly and helped reduce the number of landmines in the world. This is really in the same spirit. That is why it is so disappointing that Canada is not at least at the table.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. This is so disappointing.

President Obama was in Montreal a few days ago. We all remember his legendary words, “We can do it.” In contrast, this government is saying, “We cannot do it.” Words are not enough. What we need is action.

Individuals are awarded the Order of Canada because they have the courage of their convictions, because they have risen to challenges that are not always easy, and because of their extraordinary accomplishments. Over 100 members of the Order of Canada wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him to:

Respect and support multilateral efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons by ending Canada's boycott of the current UN General Assembly negotiations of a treaty to ban all nuclear weapons and by joining the next session of talks (scheduled for June 15 to July 7).

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Motion

moved:

That the House:

a) recognize the catastrophic humanitarian consequences thatwould result from any use of nuclear weapons, and recognize those consequences transcend national borders and pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security, and for the health of future generations;

(b) reaffirm the need to make every effort to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances;

(c) recall the unanimous vote in both Houses of Parliament in 2010 that called on Canada to participate in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention;

(d) reaffirm its support for the 2008 five-point proposal on nuclear disarmament of the former Secretary-General of the United Nations;

(e) express disappointment in Canada’s vote against, and absence from, initial rounds of negotiations for a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons; and

(f) call upon the government to support the Draft Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, released on May 22, 2017, and to commit to attend, in good faith, future meetings of the United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who, I would like to point out, has been doing excellent work on this file. It is an honour for me to share my time with her.

I am truly honoured to rise in the House today to move this motion and talk about the very timely issue of nuclear disarmament.

As the Secretary-General of the United Nations has reminded us, nuclear weapons continue to pose a serious threat to humanity and our planet. Right now, there are approximately 170,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and just one of them could cause unthinkable damage. This problem is not going away. Countries are modernizing their weapons, the new American president wants to increase the strength of his country's nuclear arsenal, and then there are countries like North Korea. That is a major concern.

It is likely because of that concern that the House unanimously adopted the following motion in 2010:

That the House of Commons:

(a) recognize the danger posed by the proliferation of nuclear materials and technology to peace and security;

(b) endorse the statement, signed by 500 members, officers and companions of the Order of Canada, underlining the importance of addressing the challenge of more intense nuclear proliferation and the progress of and opportunity for nuclear disarmament;

I will shorten it a little, since I do not have much time.

(c) endorse the 2008 five-point plan for nuclear disarmament of Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations...

(d) support the initiatives for nuclear disarmament of President Obama of the United States of America; and

(e) ...encourage the Government of Canada to deploy a major world-wide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support of preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing the rate of nuclear disarmament.

Canada did not follow through on this major diplomatic initiative. That said, a major diplomatic initiative is being undertaken at the United Nations right now, and Canada is opposing this motion, which was supported by many members across the aisle and adopted by unanimous consent. Not only did Canada fail to take the initiative and support this, but it is actually fighting it, which I find completely unacceptable.

I would really like to know what has changed, exactly, for my colleagues across the way who supported this motion in 2010. Is the current U.S. government pressuring them to not take part in this effort? That would be terrible.

Let me read another text that states:

WHEREAS there are still at least 17,000 nuclear weapons [I cannot remember what number I gave earlier] in the world, whose very existence constitutes an unprecedented threat to the continuation of life on Earth as we know it;

WHEREAS nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction not yet banned by international agreement;

WHEREAS as a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons...Canada has an international treaty obligation “to pursue negotiations” for the total elimination of nuclear weapons...;

WHEREAS the International Court of Justice ruled on July 8, 1996: i) that this [non-proliferation treaty] commitment is a legal obligation under international law, and ii) that it is generally illegal to use nuclear weapons, or even threaten to use them;

BE IT RESOLVED that [in the House, I guess] the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Government of Canada to:

comply more fully both with its international treaty obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and with the International Court of Justice ruling of July 8, 1996, by playing a pro-active role in achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world;

emulate the Ottawa Process (which led to the banning of land mines) by convening an international conference to commence negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention that would ban nuclear weapons—akin to the Biological Weapons Convention...and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The motion I just read was adopted by the Liberal Party of Canada last year. Not only are some of the members opposite turning their backs on what they supported in 2010, but they are turning the backs on their own party and supporters. This is quite unacceptable. I have raised this issue in the House several times, and each time I was told that Canada is working on a convention on fissile materials.

I am not opposed to working on such a convention, but I am not sure that this has anything to do with what I am talking about. It is a bit like if I said that this month I was going to breathe so I will not really have any time to eat. We can do both. What is stopping us from doing both?

Two days ago, in her foreign policy speech, the minister told us about the importance of multilateral systems and major international instruments. Here we have a multilateral process involving over 130 countries, and an international instrument, ratified by Canada, calling on all parties to take part in these kinds of negotiations, but Canada is missing in action.

Throughout her speech, the minister talked about all of Canada’s great accomplishments. Interestingly, she failed to mention one thing: the anti-personnel mine ban convention, signed in Ottawa. Setsuko Thurlow, a Hiroshima survivor, was here yesterday and showed us books on this convention written in Japanese. It made Canada famous.

I do not know why the minister refused to mention the anti-personnel mine ban convention, but I sometimes get the impression that she is afraid of drawing parallels with the nuclear disarmament negotiations. The situation is quite similar. It is not easy; some countries do not want to participate, but leadership means taking the initiative. While certain countries did not want to participate in the anti-personnel mine ban convention, it created a catalyst, moral suasion and a movement. It is a great achievement for Canada.

With the negotiations under way, we are truly witnessing a historic moment. There is never an ideal time for such a convention, but if we do not start, we will not reach the finish line. Right now there is a momentum that we need to capitalize on. In what little time I have left, I will quote in English the letter signed by 100 members of the Order of Canada, including former ambassadors, a former minister of foreign affairs and former ambassadors for disarmament, calling on the Government of Canada:

It states:

Lead an urgent call to end provocative rhetoric and sabre rattling over North Korea in favour of a return to sustained engagement and negotiations in pursuit of a denuclearized Korean peninsula.

Urge the US and Russia to publicly reaffirm and act on their “unequivocal undertaking,” as agreed at the 2010 NPT Review Conference, “to accomplish, in accordance with the principle of irreversibility, the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.”

Unfortunately, I will not have the time—

[Foreign Affairs, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow will be here to address interested parliamentarians.

In 2010, the Liberals supported a motion calling on Canada to work on promoting nuclear disarmament. In 2016, the Liberal Party adopted a resolution calling on the government to launch a process to ban nuclear weapons.

In fact, the United Nations is drafting a convention on banning nuclear weapons and Canada is nowhere to be found. Why is that?

[Canadian Foreign Policy, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I always find it funny to hear members of the Conservative Party talk about high-level engagement because when they were in power they were not known for being very open to dialogue. In fact, it was their trademark. Dialogue includes talking to representatives of Russia in order to resolve specific situations.

That being said, I want to address two key points. My colleague talked about Christians and other religious minorities. The basic principle behind receiving refugees must not be based on religion or colour, but on their vulnerability. That is what matters most. Gays and lesbians are especially vulnerable. Our refugee system, our immigration system, is not adapted to their particular situation and that needs to change.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously have no problem supporting the idea of Canada showing leadership within multilateral organizations and protecting human rights and all of those issues.

Like most people, many of my colleagues know that I was a diplomat for 15 years. That is exactly what I did and that is what Canada has done for a long time, except, and I am sad to say it, during the conservative interlude. Those are traditional Canadian positions and policies. I even defended them with all my energy for many years. I have no problem with them. I say again that the problem that I have is that words are not enough, there needs to be action. Unfortunately, this government is not fulfilling its promise in that regard. It is just another broken promise.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for this initiative. In these difficult times we are going through, it is absolutely essential that we have informed and frank debates on international issues.

Obviously, we support the broad principles of the motion before us. It is interesting to see that, for their part, the Conservatives seem to have problems. We will have an opportunity to discuss them. In effect, they are principles that have guided Canada’s actions on the international stage for decades, except during the Harper government interlude, of course. Those principles reflect our values and our humanity, as well as our interests. As I like to say, when the world is doing well, Canada is also doing well.

I would have liked to see certain things in this motion, particularly regarding conflict prevention and peacekeeping, but I will not dwell too long on that.

The problem is not those traditional principles that are in the motion; the problem is the discrepancy between what the motion says—which is what the minister said in her speech this morning—and what the government is actually doing. Let me provide a few examples.

The minister spoke at length with respect to the Canadian contribution to international instruments, agreements, and conventions. Of course we are all proud of that, peacekeeping being one of the first that comes to mind. I found it very interesting when the minister said, “Canada was there” and “We step up.” Yes, and that is great.

The problem with that is, for example, this month the UN is negotiating a convention to ban nuclear weapons. Guess what? Canada is not there. Canada actually stepped down. The minister said that we are doing this other thing, which is a bit like saying, “This month I'm cleaning the dishes, so I won't make food or I won't clean the clothes. Let's just do one thing.” It just does not hold water, especially given that the Liberals voted for a motion in this House in 2010 asking for such a convention and in 2016 the Liberal Party adopted a resolution asking for work to be done on that file. Now the government is saying no.

Let us take human rights. It is easy to speak about human rights when it is easy, but it is when the going gets tough that we see whether or not a country is really ready to stand up for human rights. What about selling arms to Saudi Arabia? That is certainly defending human rights. What about having an ombudsman for our mining sector? This was promised by the current government before the election, and we do not hear anything about it anymore.

Regarding Raif Badawi, it seems that not much is being done for him. It seems that he is not a Canadian citizen, but rather someone who has been imprisoned for wanting to exercise his right to free speech, his right to free thought. The response to his imprisonment is very lukewarm. However, there is a matter on which we are more proactive: we want an extradition treaty with China. Even though we know the Chinese legal system, we want to be able to extradite people to China more easily.

These are just a few examples, but there is a fundamental contradiction between what we are told and what is being done. Another example of this is that the motion refers to sharing economic benefits. That is all well and good. However, can someone explain to me why Canada’s contribution to international development represents one-third of its international commitments?

Canada’s international commitment is to allocate 0.7% of its gross national income to international development. We currently allocate 0.2% or slightly more. Unfortunately, there is no commitment by this government to establish a timeline for achieving 0.7%.

The British did so while they were in a very difficult financial situation, because they understood their duty of solidarity and their long-term interests, particularly regarding security. Here, however, there is nothing. We have frozen the budget, which means a cut, given inflation.

The peacekeeping theme was also part of the big announcements by the Liberals. Today, a year and a half later, the minister has told us that we will have more news later this week as part of the defence review.

However, peacekeeping is not strictly a defence issue; it is also a foreign affairs issue. We have been waiting a year and a half for this government to take a position. Our partners are worried and they are wondering what is happening.

Is this government unable to make a decision, so that the other countries involved can organize accordingly? Yes or no?

Climate change is another issue that is extremely important to me. It is the best example of an issue that has us all in the same boat and requires us to work together.

Speeches are great, and I appreciate the will, in words at least, to do something in this area. We continue to work with the Harper government’s targets and we will not even achieve those targets.

The list is very long and I could go into more detail.

One other example is the cluster munitions convention. When the Conservative government tabled a bill to put into effect the cluster munitions convention, the Liberals said that it was terrible, that it did not fulfill the aims of the convention, that it even went against those aims.

Now the Liberals do not seem keen at all to repair the mistakes that were made by the Conservatives. On top of that, they are giving us a bill, at last, so Canada can accede to the ATT. However, the key provision of that bill relating to human rights and all that will be left to regulations. Those can be changed at any time. We do not what the Liberals will be putting into that, what they will be doing. A lot of people are highly preoccupied with this.

As I said at the beginning, we do live in difficult international times. I agree with what the minister said about working with partners, especially working with like-minded partners,with people who want to move forward with a better world and share our concerns and our vision. However, it is not enough to say that. If we want to work together with those countries, those countries must have trust in us.

That trust between parties will not be developed by simply giving speeches in the House of Commons that essentially reiterate what Canada’s foreign policy has been for decades. Only our actions will rebuild the trust that has been undermined over the last decade.

That means that we must stand up to protect human rights and act multilaterally. It means that we must submit to and comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions. As for the council's resolution 2334, I have asked the minister several times whether she will comply with it. However, she refuses to say. For a country that wants to sit on the Security Council, refusing to say that it will comply with resolutions when all the other countries are bound by those resolutions is absolutely unacceptable.

I almost forgot another very important point: the minister also mentioned that Canada is a safe haven for people fleeing violence, war, and discrimination.

I am not so sure about that. We have been asking for months now for Canada to suspend the safe third country agreement with the United States. Somebody died recently because of this agreement. People have lost their arms, their fingers, their feet. There is no reason to have that agreement in place right now. I think we all know the problems for refugees in the United States. In this current situation, we cannot consider it to still be a safe third country. If the government is really ready to stand up for human rights, if it is ready to do more than talk, the government should suspend that agreement immediately until the situation develops further.

Overall, this motion does not tell us anything new. I think that they are all principles that we have seen for a very long time, that we will not oppose, and that we will obviously endorse. Multilateral work is part of our DNA in the NDP. We firmly believe in it. As for this motion, I can guarantee that I will continue to dedicate my time and my energy to ensuring that this government does more than just talk and that it finally begins acting to systematically apply these principles.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, June 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the minister for this initiative. I think that, in these difficult times on the international scene, it is more important than ever to have frank and open debates in the House regarding Canadian foreign policy.

Obviously, the main principles of the motion resonate with us. They are the traditional principles of Canada and principles that Canada has long defended, because they address both our humanity and our interests. As I like to say, when the world is doing well, Canada is doing better.

That said, words are not enough. The minister mentioned the many Canadians who were involved in creating institutions and developing tools. We are all proud of that, obviously, but at the same time, Canada refuses to take part in negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention.

We can talk about human rights, but what is happening with Raïf Badawi and with the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia? What is happening with the creation of an ombudsman for responsible mining? What is happening with the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement for refugees? There are many such topics, but I will keep to just two questions for the minister.

When can we expect a clear announcement regarding a Canadian peacekeeping mission and when can we expect to have a timeline for Canada to respect its commitment to allocate 0.7% of its gross national income to international development?