Hélène Laverdière

[Situation in Ukraine, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his always interesting remarks. I would like to go back to one of his comments that it is not enough to be opposed, to stand up and say that we are not happy; we must also act.

I would also like to go back to the issue of targeted sanctions. Of course we have an international co-operation program, including in Ukraine, which is very important. It is one of our countries of focus. Some might be inclined to say that we could cut the assistance program or do something else. I am not suggesting cutting the assistance program. I would just like my colleague to tell us more about the concept of targeted sanctions.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to the government’s policy on fully autonomous weapons and autonomous robotics systems: (a) has the Department of National Defense (DND) provided financing, logistical assistance, or any other means of support for the research and development of fully autonomous weapons; (b) has DND provided financing, logistical assistance, or any other means of support for the research and development of autonomous robotic systems; (c) has DND awarded any contracts to develop or contribute to the development of autonomous robotic systems, and, if so, (i) what is the value of each contract, (ii) what entity was awarded each contract, (iii) what were the objective, terms, and conditions of each contract, (iv) what controls were put in place to prevent the future weaponization of this research; (d) has the government entered into any agreements with universities or research institutes in Canada to study or develop autonomous robotic systems, and, if so, for each respective agreement, (i) what is the value of the government’s contribution, (ii) with which entity was the agreement signed, (iii) what were the objective, terms, and conditions of the agreement, (iv) what controls were put in place to prevent the future weaponization of this research; (e) do DND or the Canadian Forces (CF) have written policies, regulations, rules, or guidelines on the use of robotics by DND or CF, and, if so, what are those policies, regulations, rules, or guidelines; (f) do DND or CF have written policies, regulations, rules, or guidelines on the use of fully autonomous weapons by DND or CFs, and, if so, what are those policies, regulations, rules, or guidelines; and (g) what steps has the government taken in applying Article 36 of Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions (new weapons), in regard to funding, research, developing and testing of new weapons systems?

[Petitions, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from residents in my constituency, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who join with the thousands and thousands of people demanding simply that the Senate be abolished.

[Petitions, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to present two petitions.

In the first petition, the signatories point out that a number of communities in the south are reporting that their rights are not being respected and that their health and means of subsistence are being threatened by oppressive actions on the part of Canadian mining companies. They also point out that the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor has too weak a mandate to resolve these issues and they are calling for the creation of a legal mechanism to establish an ombudsman for the extractive sector in Canada.

[Foreign Affairs, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are weakening our system for regulating arms exports, the export of weapons to countries such as Bahrain and Iraq has doubled in recent years. The Conservatives are dragging their feet when it comes to the Arms Trade Treaty and they have delayed implementing firearms marking regulations.

Why exactly is the minister insisting on ignoring the impact of arms trade on human rights, peace and security?

[Public Safety, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the December 6 tragedy taught us that public safety—not politics—should be the priority when it comes to gun control.

Instead of listening to victims, the police or experts, the Conservatives listen to the gun lobby. I should point out that they just delayed the adoption of firearms marking regulations, which are important in identifying illegal firearms.

When will the Conservatives put public safety before the interests of lobbyists?

[Status of Women, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, 24 years ago, 14 women were brutally murdered simply because they were women. In the days after this tragedy, we swore to put an end to violence against women, but this violence is unfortunately still a daily reality for far too many Canadian women.

When will the government create a real national strategy to combat violence against women?

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today we remember the 14 women who were killed in cold blood 24 years ago just because they were women. We will never forget them.

Today we remember with grief the murder of 14 young women, killed because they wanted to live their lives fully. As we remember them, we also commit ourselves to fight against all forms of violence against women and bring justice for those who have fallen, including hundreds of missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada.

It is not enough to commemorate them. On behalf of these 14 women, it is our duty to continue to fight against all forms of violence and discrimination against women by standing up for rights and gun control, the fight against poverty and justice for missing and murdered aboriginal women.

In memory of all these innocent women, we can do more. We must do more.

[International Cooperation, December 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague says that we cannot ignore the private sector. Clearly, that is true. She asked rhetorically how we can use the private sector better. The answer is to start from the needs and the perspectives of those most disadvantaged, and besides, that is what the law says.

However, that is not what this government is doing. This government said publicly that the goal was not to meet the needs of the least fortunate and raise them out of poverty, but rather to open new markets for Canadian businesses. I would remind the House that that is the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

There is also the wishful thinking whereby economic growth will automatically help the least fortunate. First of all, I have to wonder why the government is not working on economic growth in countries like Niger, as in the example I gave.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that if countries do not have good governance and an effective tax system, that will not necessarily help the least fortunate.

[International Cooperation, December 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is a follow-up to the question I asked in the House on October 23, when we learned that the CEO of Rio Tinto Alcan was advising the government about the merger of what was formerly CIDA with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I want to begin my brief speech by being very clear. I have nothing against trade; however, it is just one aspect of international relations. Peace, security, our partnerships with various countries, good governance, development and human rights are also important aspects of our country's global interests. Unfortunately, the Conservatives' ridiculously narrow approach to international relations will hurt Canada in the short and medium terms. Our reputation is already suffering. Our traditional and potential partners are looking at us with increasing doubt and skepticism.

Last week, we saw this narrow approach in the announcement that all of Canada's diplomatic resources would now be devoted to trade. It is as though expanding trade did not also require peace, stability and development, to name just a few factors. It is as though we did not already have excellent trade officers. During my career, I have had the pleasure of working with many trade officers. They are extraordinary people. They do fantastic work. It is their mandate and they are paid for that.

We have seen this narrow approach, which sometimes turns into magical thinking, in a new direction for our development programs. This is a direction that has been in effect for some time now and it is troubling, to say the least. For example, when I hear the former minister of international development say that the purpose of Canada's international co-operation is to open up markets for Canada, I wonder. I wonder whether he knows Canadian law, because the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act is very clear. It says that Canada's approach to official development assistance is to focus on poverty reduction, take into account the perspectives of the poor and be consistent with international human rights standards.

The government is turning the entire process on its head. Rather than assessing development needs and determining how we might use private enterprises, corporations, civil society organizations or others to meet those needs, the government is focusing on the needs of industry and thinking that this will automatically affect the poor. The law is very clear: we must take into account the perspectives of the poor. However, the government is providing more assistance to countries where we have commercial interests and it is no longer providing assistance to countries like Niger.

After allowing the gun lobby to dictate our policy on the arms trade, are the Conservatives going to allow the mining industry to determine our foreign aid policy?