Paul Dewar

[International Co-operation, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can smell the flip-flop coming.

The Prime Minister will be facing additional challenges at the G8—

[National Defence, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to extending Canada's military role in Afghanistan past 2014, the Prime Minister says he is considering all options. That was news to Canadians, but then again it is not the first time the government has flip-flopped on mission extension.

At the NATO summit this weekend, will the Prime Minister stand firm on his commitment to end Canada's involvement in this war, or will he continue his habit of making unpopular announcements while in other countries?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as an open and active member of the United Nations, Canada has a long-standing invitation for all UN human rights officials to visit our country. However, when the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food took up this invitation, he was welcomed by the government with insults to his education and attacks on his mandate. Worse yet, when a government member attacked him in a statement, theMinister of Foreign Affairs applauded.

Is this the way a government of a G8 country is supposed to treat visitors from the UN? Is this a new policy of the government?

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is one of those questions one does not want to answer. In fact, women are being forced into marriages when they should not be and young girls in rural areas in particular are often used for temporary marriages, which we would call forms of prostitution. Women who speak out at all about rights for women are jailed, tortured and then hanged. That is why it is so important that we speak tonight about our commitment to fight for the human rights of all Iranians but particularly women, whose plight is not only grave but something we need to speak out more on because in the end they are unable to speak for themselves.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, of course New Democrats concur with those who say we should not be shutting our immigration offices abroad, particularly in areas as sensitive as Iran, where we know that any engagement is a positive thing. That said, we also need to understand that sanctions can be effective. We can do both. We are able to engage with Iran in ways that would help the people of Iran. What the member points out is something unfortunate that the government has done.

I did not get to speak to this because of time, but we also have to be aware of what we are doing when it comes to technology transfer. This is an area where I would like to see a little more vigilance from our government. There are actual technologies being transferred to Iran that help the regime to monitor its citizens. We saw this during the crackdown in 2009, and it is something we need to take a look at to ensure that nothing we are exporting or selling gets into the hands of the regime, particularly the Republican Guard, that allows it to use technology transfer to monitor its citizens, after which people end up in some very dire circumstances.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was simply noting that we should not beat the drums of war and get involved in hot rhetoric. I was not accusing the member across the aisle, but I am concerned about the path some are going down. We need, as I said, to take the advice of President Peres and others who say we need to ensure we are going to invest in human rights protection. I did not notice him saying anything about why the government killed Rights and Democracy, and he knows full well that it is able to do work on the ground in places like Iran and Zimbabwe. Sadly, that is no longer going to be the case because of the government's poor choices.

Further, we need to ensure Canada is going to be a responsible player when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. We have an opportunity to take a leadership role and, sadly, on that issue the government has not led.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for two very important questions.

On the first question, it is with great sadness that we see that an institution that was started with the previous Conservative government, in fact, is going to be killed through this budget bill we were debating.

Why it is important is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs said we would be able to do the works of Rights and Democracy through our ambassadors and through our foreign affairs capacity. That cannot be done in Iran.

What we were able to do through Rights and Democracy is to be in countries like Iran to support civil society, to support human rights fighters and protect their capability to actually fight for human rights. Sadly, that has ironically been killed by the government that professes to want to support human rights in Iran.

I would say to the government that if it is really committed to human rights in Iran, it needs to look in the mirror and ask itself why it is killing Rights and Democracy, and why is it taking away the ability for human rights defence in Iran. That is exactly what happened.

On the second point, we have to be very cogent in what we say when it comes to Iran. To support people in Iran, we should not beat the drums of war, or get loose with our rhetoric, or suggest we will go to war with Iran, because that supports the regime. It gives it a pretext to crack down on the population. We know this from talking to people here in Canada who talk to people in Iran. They do not want that. It undermines the credibility.

Recently Israeli President Shimon Peres said, “in order to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear [armed] country you have to introduce a system of verification and inspection” when it comes to nuclear arms. He worried that a system such as we would need to verify any proliferation of nuclear arms could be jeopardized by a pre-emptive attack.

It is unfortunate that Canada is not taking a lead role in nuclear negotiations and verification. There is an opportunity to do that. I wish we would, and I wish we would actually listen to President Peres when he says we should not beat the drums of war but ensure we are going to be responsible actors.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating the situation in Iran. Many people have been seized with the situation on the ground and human rights. Many of us in the House have spoken out against the deplorable situation of human rights in Iran.

I will begin by just going back a couple of years. In June 2009, we watched scores of Iranian Canadians come to this city to cast their ballots in the presidential election. I remember it very well, as I am sure many do. There was so much excitement in the air. There was the idea of the possibility of change. Many of my good friends who voted in that election actually thought there would be a change in Iran. There were feisty debates between candidates, some of which I watched online while one of my staff translated it for me. Young Iranians were getting engaged in politics. It was quite exciting. It was long before the Arab Spring that we just saw last year. There was so much hope for change and we all thought that maybe change would come.

The results, of course, shocked Iranians and shocked the world. Abedinejad was declared the winner with a wide margin and all indications were that the results were not true, they were bogus, and the vote of the Iranian people was stolen from them.

What did people do? When they see this kind of theft of an election and people care about it, they take to the streets, which is what happened. People took to the streets. We watched from here and the world watched during those months. There was a certain unity of cause and concern that embraced many people in this country and people around the world. We thought maybe the voice of the people would be heard and that people would actually come together to ensure that democracy would not only seen to be done but would be done.

Then we saw what was a popular uprising in the first flashes of what we have seen with the pro-democracy movements and the Arab Spring that took North Africa this past year, and later into other parts of the Middle East, take place and take root. In fact, Canadians joined those popular protest gatherings. In solidarity with those who had taken to the streets in Tehran and right across Iran, people joined. I remember right out here at the eternal flame they joined in a quiet, solemn display of solidarity with the people of Iran. We said that the people of Iran's voice should be respected.

What followed was, sadly for some, predictable but for so many Iranians was the tumult of disaster of a repressive regime cracking down on their voices. Those in power decided that they would use the monopoly of violence against their people. That is what happened after the uprising of the people following the results of the election being sullied and Abedinejad taking power. There was a repression that happened and it has continued on since June 2009.

Tonight we are here to debate the situation of human rights on the ground in Iran. However, I want it to be underlined that the people of Iran did speak, that they joined together and voted for change. They coalesced in change and fought for change and Canadians and people all around the world supported that voice. We must continue to do that.

Tonight we will speak to he human rights violations in Iran. My colleagues will speak to the political persecution, the repression of women's rights, the attacks on civil society, the attacks on journalists, artists, independent trade unionists, the discrimination due to sexual orientation that we have already heard about and the repression of people based on ethnicity and religious beliefs. We will think of people, particularly for me, who are from the Baha'i faith. Of course, the origins of the Baha'i faith come right from Iran. We will think of the importance of being in solidarity with those who are not able to speak out.

We will want to ensure those who are in Iran now and those who are with the people of Iran that they are not alone, that we will speak with them.

However, let us look at the history of the democratic movement in Iran, because that is the other thing we have to underline. There is a democratic thread through the history of Iran. Canadian human rights expert, Payam Akhavan said:

Despite the violent repression of the protests, millions of Iranians have now awakened to their own power in a historic struggle for democracy. In contrast to mere “regime change,” this profound grassroots shift in consciousness is the most far-reaching expression of revolutionary change. Despite the challenges that lie ahead, there will be no returning to the totalitarian past.

That flame keeps burning in the Iranian people.

We know the current situation in Iran, but the long history should be noted. In 1906, there was a constitutionalist revolution that established a Parliament to end the absolute monarchy in Iran. The success was limited due to an Anglo-Russian meddling and a largely illiterate electorate, at the time, which undermined its going further.

In 1951, though, we know that the democratic election of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and his nationalization of the Aglo-Iranian oil company, later known as BP, brought a lot of attention to the world. Of course, it was the attention of the CIA.

The CIA-sponsored coup in 1953 undermined that democracy and what we saw after was something that carried on for too long. It was the regime that we all know too well, the shah's regime that fell in 1979 due to a popular revolution. Now the promises that were made for democratic change by those who came in sadly were not realized. Instead, Islamic militants began to establish a totalitarian state under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini through a reign of terror and violence.

From 1980 to 1988, the devastating war with Iraq went on, in which the west supported Saddam Hussein. Let us remember that. That war traumatized the Iranian people and helped the Islamic regime's consolidation of power.

In 1997, the election of the reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, signalled a desire for an open society. Hard-liners undermined every attempt at modest reforms, and again democracy and reform were undermined. That was sad.

As I just mentioned, in June 2009 reformists believed they could beat Mr. Ahmadinejad but the sham elections that took place showed how determined the regime was to hold onto power. Ahmadinejad's victory gave rise to the massive peaceful protests that I mentioned and, let us be frank, that few observers had actually predicted.

What we know is that there is a vibrant civil society still fighting for truth, justice and civil rights. Women and students continue to organize and speak out, as do workers and members of different religious backgrounds. Secular Iranians have also come together and demonstrated that their country's political coming of age must not stop.

I must say that the human rights in Iran that we talk about tonight must be protected, but we should also be consistent in how we do that. The solutions are to invest in rights and democracy and build a system of international relations based on respect for human rights. The hope and intention on all sides of this House is to see the kind of change in Iran that would have helped a more democratic and progressive society.

What should Canada do? Invest in rights and democracy. Sadly, the government killed the institution, Rights and Democracy, that could help with that. Be smart in our diplomacy. Ensure we do not beat the drums of war at a time when we need to invest in diplomacy and look for bridges to reconciliation and to support human rights in all their forms in Iran.

Finally, let us remember the words of Mr. Akhavan. He said:

The paradox in today's Iran is that just underneath the authoritarian surface of the Islamic Republic lies the most promising democracy in the Middle East.

Let us support it. Let us support human rights in Iran and let us not get caught into rhetorical games that lead to war.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, before I pose a question to my colleague across the way, I just have to make a comment on the fact that the government, yet again, is going to shut down debate in this House on something that is vitally important to Canadians. Shame on it. This is a party that said in opposition that it would have open debates, that it would encourage that debate, and here we have Parliament about to be shut down again.

My question is for my colleague. Digital locks was one of the things that the minister and others said they had to put in place because of our international responsibilities. However, time and time again evidence has been brought forward that it is not required.

The question is: Why is the government selling out consumers and bringing forward the false premise that we had to do this when we do not? Not only is there less money for artists, with the $20 million gone, but also a false premise that we had to put the digital locks on consumers.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, unlike some of the members across the way, actually understands what it is to be an artist, and that is what is missing here. Artists do their work not because of the pay they get, often, though a few do; they do it because they have a passion for it. It defines who we are as a country.

My question to the member is this. Why does he think the government forewent the opportunity to support artists, particularly the $21 million he is referring to, which would go directly to support artists? This bill would take that way. Why does he think the government did that?