Karina Gould

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is times like these where it is compelling, when we see the videos, when we see the images, to want to name what is happening.

However, what we do know is that these are mass atrocities, and we also know that there is an important legal history and an important jurisprudence that is founded on these terms, and that we have an obligation, as Canada, to be part of that international community and that international legal process.

It is up to us in this House to make sure that we are coming to this debate and coming to this issue with cool heads, regardless of how emotional and how horrific these acts are.

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to look at the calls that the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have made, precisely with regard to incorrigible acts that have been committed against innocent civilians within the region, the appeals to the United Nations Security Council, the appeals for respecting and upholding humanitarian principles, and the urge to respect international humanitarian law.

This is something that our Minister of Foreign Affairs and our Minister of International Development and La Francophonie have done consistently. When the minister and I were at the World Humanitarian Summit, we were very clear that it is so important in these international crises that all parties respect humanitarian principles, respect international humanitarian law, and that we are committed to ensuring these principles are upheld.

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's question, however, that is precisely what our government is demanding at the moment, a fact- and evidence-based decision in making this call and defining what is going on in Syria and Iraq.

That is exactly why we have the position that we do, because as our government has stated from the beginning, we base our decisions on fact and evidence.

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

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

I would like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition and member for Sturgeon River—Parkland for putting forward this motion and today's debate.

I believe that I am not mistaken, as I start, by saying that all members in the House are outraged by the pervasive and unrelenting violence in the conflict in Syria and Iraq. Our government is outraged by the deliberate targeting of health facilities, as we have seen in Aleppo and in Kamounia camp, near the border with Turkey.

Canada deplores the deliberate targeting of civilians and the continued disregard for international humanitarian law. The continued cost in the lives of innocent men, women, and children from such attacks is unacceptable and further demonstrates the need for an urgent de-escalation of violence. The appalling acts of violence perpetrated by Daesh have resulted in the deaths of thousands of people of all faiths in Iraq and in Syria. The atrocities and widespread abuses perpetrated by Daesh against religious and ethnic communities, including Yazidis, Christians, Shiites, and Sunnis, is an affront to human dignity and Canadian values of peaceful pluralism and respect for diversity.

Freedom of religion and belief and the ability to worship in peace and security is a universal human right. Human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated and must be enjoyed by all people, without discrimination and without distinctions of any kind. Canada stands in solidarity with those facing oppression as a result of their religious beliefs.

I am outraged, and Canadians are outraged, by the use of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war. Sexual violence as a specific tactic, as well as the enslavement of women and girls, is not unique to the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. However, its systematic employment by Daesh in Syria and Iraq needs to be recognized, and its perpetrators will ultimately need to be held to account.

We are equally outraged by acts of violence against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In February, the UN commission of inquiry on Syria reported that Daesh continues to target sexual minorities for execution. The report contains shocking examples of Daesh's intolerance and brutality. This includes a video that shows two men being thrown from a building. Why? It was because they had been accused of committing homosexual acts. Our government deplores this violence and any kind of discrimination or intolerance based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Let me reiterate that our government strongly condemns the terrorist acts committed by Daesh, and we firmly support investigations into their crimes and the prosecution of perpetrators. However, while we respect the emotion behind this motion, and what fair-minded person would not, unfortunately, democratic governments cannot only be guided by emotion.

I understand that members opposite disagree with the approach we are following, namely to arrive at a legal determination and not simply a political or emotional one. Why are legal determinations important? It is so we do not risk acting in a manner that undermines our intent.

As part of our broader engagement in the Middle East region, Canada is taking substantial and concrete actions that contribute to preventing and halting war crimes, and possibly genocide, by Daesh.

Our participation in the international coalition, our provision of humanitarian, development, and security and stabilization assistance, and our diplomatic engagement all support the protection of vulnerable populations.

To this effect, on February 8, the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie shared Canada's commitment to deliver a multi-faceted response to the crises in Syria and Iraq and their impact on the surrounding region. This commitment includes $1.1 billion in much-needed humanitarian and development assistance over three years.

From this funding, $840 million will help provide much-needed humanitarian assistance, such as food, urgent health services, water, shelter, education, and protection, including from sexual violence, for the most vulnerable people affected by conflicts in the Middle East.

On April 13, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie took the first step in delivering on this commitment by announcing $100 million in humanitarian assistance funding to support the responses to the conflicts in Iraq and Syria.

This announcement included $31.8 million to UNICEF to match the generous donations of Canadians to charitable organizations responding to the crisis. This funding will increase education opportunities, provide child protection services in Syria and Jordan, and support immunization efforts for children in Syria, responding to critical needs and building the resilience of conflict-affected communities.

The funding announced is also supporting our humanitarian partners to provide emergency physical and functional rehabilitation services to people injured by the violence in Syria and Iraq, psychosocial support to people traumatized by violence, and clean water, food, shelter, and primary health care to people who have fled the violence in Syria.

In addition, this government is supporting the provision of confidential medical assistance, case management, and referral services to survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.

Canada's humanitarian partners work in some of the most dangerous and challenging environments. Every day, humanitarian staff, many of them Canadians, put their lives on the line to make sure that vulnerable civilians affected by conflict around the world, including in Syria and Iraq, get the assistance they need. The price they continue to pay for their dedication to their mission is tragic. Since the conflict began in Syria, over 87 humanitarian personnel have been killed.

One need not travel far from the House of Commons to appreciate the dedication of Canada's humanitarian community.

Given the inherent challenges in delivering humanitarian assistance, Canada's long-standing practice is that Canadian humanitarian funding is provided to experienced humanitarian partners to meet the life-saving needs of civilians caught in the middle of conflict.

With decades of experience, our humanitarian partners have developed practices and processes to ensure the integrity of the assistance they deliver. Canada's humanitarian partners adhere to the principle of humanity, meaning that all victims of conflict or civilians affected by conflict deserve protection and assistance, no matter where they are found.

In order to fulfill this goal, our partners also adhere to the principles of impartiality, neutrality, and independence so that they can work wherever those in need are located. This is an essential point. The ability of humanitarian workers to have access to people in need is predicated on their actions being neutral. This means providing assistance with no military or political objective, only the objective of saving lives and alleviating suffering.

In many contexts, the safety and security of aid workers depends on their ability to demonstrate that they have no other motive than providing assistance to those in need. Humanitarian principles remain the foundation of this trust, and we must be careful to protect their integrity.

Canada is committed to promoting and enhancing respect for humanitarian principles, international humanitarian law, and the protection of civilians.

We must uphold the spirit and the letter of the law, improve compliance, and hold violators to account. For this reason, our humanitarian partners and the Government of Canada are extremely careful that humanitarian assistance is provided in full respect of humanitarian principles and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Last month, I participated in the World Humanitarian Summit, in Istanbul, Turkey. I represented Canada at an event entitled “A Call to Action for Addressing Gender-Based Violence in Emergencies”, because we continue to be concerned about the fact that there is an increased incidence of sexual and gender-based violence during a humanitarian crisis. Women and girls, in particular, continue to face increased protection risks, such as sexual violence, trafficking, and child, early, and forced marriage during crises.

I wish to reiterate this government's commitment to helping the most vulnerable and this government's commitment to do so in a manner consistent with humanitarian principles.

I understand that members opposite disagree with the approach we are following, namely that we be guided by principles, principles that have served Canada for decades, under governments of all stripes, and not by emotion or politics.

We all abhor what Daesh is doing. We all want it to stop and to hold the perpetrators to account. To do this, we must work with our allies through the international legal process. To not do so both elevates the structure of Daesh to something it is not, a government, and risks having Canada condemn it in a manner not consistent with how our country approaches addressing such acts. This is the appropriate process, and we are following in line with our allies and the international bodies responsible in that assessment.

This government stands with the United Nations and its international partners in calling for a judicial investigation and an end to impunity for the perpetrators of serious international crimes.

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent upon all of us in this House to recognize that we all recognize the horrible atrocities being committed by Daesh in the region. All of us understand this and take this to heart. Canada stands by the people who are suffering and the people who have been innocently victimized horrifically by Daesh.

However, it is also important to remember that Canada does not operate within a vacuum. We operate within an international community. There is the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court, institutions that were put in place precisely because of a genocide in 1939 to 1945.

As responsible members of the international community, Canada has, indeed, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, written to the President of the UN Security Council to ask for this investigation. I believe that the other side should take this very seriously and understand that Canada is doing its part and that we are working together to best—

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, while I would not say that we should prejudge Canadians' reflections on different electoral systems, I think it is an absolutely terrific idea to use our householders and the tools we have at our disposal to share what different options are available to Canadians and to invite them to submit their feedback. At the end of the day, we want to hear from as many different people as possible.

Throughout the election campaign and over the past number of months, I have asked a number of people in my riding for their thoughts. I am indeed considering doing that exact thing, putting this information into my householder, inviting feedback, and using that to guide me in my own decision and my own thinking on this matter.

I thank the member very much for an excellent suggestion.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke for his comments and his question.

As we all know, the government and the House receive all recommendations from all parliamentary committees, and those recommendations factor into the deliberations.

This is to bring forward legislation and bring forward ideas to the House. I believe, as the Minister of Democratic Institutions has said and most ministers in this government have said, committees play an important role in the legislative process and at the end of the day the decision will be made by the House. The committee has an important role to play in terms of gathering information and making recommendations, but those final decisions are made by all members here in the House of Commons.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, and I also welcome his remarks on the important history that all parties have had in the House about increasing the inclusion of Canadians into the democratic process.

I believe that right now we are taking the first step in beginning this conversation. This is a big conversation and a big dialogue that we as Canadians must have about how to continue to move our democracy forward. We will do it by engaging with Canadians, the committee doing extensive consultations, and members of Parliament conducting town halls. As we develop what kind of system we want to put forward to Canadians as to how to govern ourselves, we will think about the next steps after that.

I thank my hon. colleague very much for his question and welcome the contributions of all members of the House to this dialogue.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in this important and historic debate on the establishment of a special all-party committee on electoral reform. This is an issue that affects all Canadians, and I am glad to see such strong principles proposed in the amended motion to guide this committee's study.

I wish to spend my time today discussing some of the changes to our electoral system that have been introduced over the past century; changes that at the time were seen as rather dramatic alterations to our system. Many of these reforms, however, are now looked back upon by Canadians as moments of true progress in the history of our great democracy.

The electoral system we have today is the product of almost 150 years of evolution. The election we saw in October was quite different from elections upon Confederation, when only a fraction of Canadians, namely land-owning men, had a say in our democratic institution. Our government's pledge to replace the first-past-the-post system is just another step in this historical evolution to a more inclusive, efficient, and stronger electoral system for all Canadians.

Allow me to begin in 1920, over a half century after Confederation.

After 50 years of elections in this country, Parliament established the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. It was not until 1927 that the Chief Electoral Officer was appointed by the House and not the government. These were seen as quite major changes at the time, but they are ones we can all look back on, knowing they have helped lead to nearly a century of trusted and independent electoral administration in this country.

It was not until 1964, nearly a full century after Confederation, that Parliament introduced independent electoral district boundary commissions to draw riding boundaries, bringing an end to gerrymandering. Prior to this, the government could simply decide who got to vote where, with little recourse for individuals, communities, or opposition parties. This is another instance of what was once proclaimed to be a fundamental change to our electoral system. In hindsight, we see that this reform has helped build trust among Canadians that our electoral system has integrity, that it is fair, and that all communities have a voice.

In our ever-evolving system, parties only began registering with Elections Canada in 1970, and they only became subject to election spending limits in 1974. After a century of elections, Parliament significantly altered our politics by removing the role of big money in our elections. I truly believe our democracy is stronger because of that, but once again, it was an area of contentious debate at the time. Today, the idea of unlimited spending in an election would be quickly dismissed by Canadians as a barrier to the level playing field we hold dear for free and fair elections. We are proud that our elections are based on ideas and debate, and not simply dollars.

I have spoken briefly of some reforms to the electoral system itself, but I would like to turn now to the increasing franchise over the years; a clear example of how far our electoral system has progressed since Confederation. Allow me to return back to the 1920s, when elections in this country were decentralized and run under a hodgepodge of provincial statues.

In the 1920s, the federal legislation deferred to the provinces in allowing disqualifications on the right to vote for “reasons of race”. This provision worked to disqualify many Canadians, including those of Chinese, Japanese, and Ukrainian descent, among others. However, it was not until 1948 that Parliament deleted references to disqualification on the basis of race. It was not until 1950 that Parliament allowed the Inuit the right to vote, and it was not until 1960 that Parliament allowed first nation people the right to vote without forcing them to give up their status or home on a reserve.

Expanding the franchise was divisive at the time. Today, however, we look back and simply wonder what took Parliament so long to recognize the rights of all Canadians in exercising their vote.

Women were not able to vote until legislative changes were enacted in 1918. Those individuals living in poor houses or the homeless were not able to vote until 1929. War objectors were not able to vote between 1938 and 1955. It was only in 1970 that the voting age was lowered to 18 from 21.

What I am trying to get at is that, when we reflect on these developments without the partisan frames in which they were originally debated, we see reforms that uphold and correspond to our values as Canadians; we see reforms that uphold the rights of all Canadians; and we see reforms that strengthen the bond between the people and the government and that instill trust that the government is formed by the true democratic will of all Canadians.

It is almost incomprehensible that we could ever exclude a full 50% of society from the franchise, that we could exclude indigenous peoples, ethnocultural minority groups, and those who dared to express different beliefs from those of the government of the day. While I am certainly not proud of the history of disenfranchisement in Canada's electoral history, I am truly proud of how far our democracy has evolved into a more inclusive system for all Canadians.

Electoral reform is the next step in this evolution toward a more inclusive system. We can build a better system that provides a stronger link between the democratic will of Canadians and the election results, one that motivates Canadians to take part, one that reflects our collective values of fairness, inclusiveness, gender equity, openness, and mutual respect. To get there, the process leading to reform must also embody these values. Parliamentarians will need to set aside partisan interests and engage in a thoughtful and substantive dialogue with each other and with citizens.

I strongly believe that stepping away from the first-past-the-post system and embracing a new system that can reflect these values and the values articulated in this amended motion would be another milestone in the history of Canada's elections. I suspect future generations will look back at the reforms proposed in this motion and reflect on them, as I have done today with past reforms. I suspect they will note this is yet another example of how our electoral system has evolved to further increase the inclusion of all peoples, to better reflect the will of voters and the representation of the House, and to work toward a system that produces a House that looks more and more like the faces of Canadians.

I hope all members will join me and support the creation of this committee.

[Income Tax Act, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the Journals and the Debates for Wednesday, May 18, 2016, be revised to add the name of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to the list of nays in division No. 63.