- 1 Home of Commons
- 2 Senate
- 2.1 Routine Proceedings
- 2.2 Question Period
- 2.3 Orders of the Day
- 2.4 Invoice to Amend—Third Reading
- 2.5 The Senate: Motion to Urge the Government to Cease Diplomatic Relations with Iran—Debate Continued
- 2.6 Indigenous Languages Bill: First Studying
- 2.7 Contacting Members of the House of Commons
- 2.8 Contacting Senators
Home of Commons
Statements by Members
Iran Accountability Week
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, whose life matters?
At totally different occasions in history, the thought of universal human dignity and value has been challenged from totally different sources and for different reasons.
Some societies have sought to deny recognition to some human beings as a result of that denial was economically convenient. If your society relies on slave labour, then recognizing the humanity of enslaved persons is inconvenient, regardless that it is morally right.
Other societies have used dehumanization to justify the expropriation of property from minorities or other forms of exploitation.
Typically it is inconvenient to acknowledge the weak as human because it is pricey to assist and help them.
Our assessment of who is human shouldn’t depend upon convenience; it should mirror objective actuality.
Essential occasions are happening on Parliament Hill as we speak, where individuals gather to talk out concerning the mass killing of innocents by the Iranian regime, as a part of Iran Accountability Week.
It might not all the time be handy for us to take a stand towards that regime, however it is one thing we must do. We should stand towards the dehumanization efforts of that regime, and be sure that universal immutable human dignity is acknowledged in every state of affairs.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the reach of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps goes far past brutalizing its own population. It goes far beyond interfering with its Middle East neighbours. Additionally it is terrorizing Canadians, resembling radio host Narges Ghaffari, by forcing relations in Iran to move on the message of “Stop your activism”, so that, because the saying goes, “no one gets hurt”.
A yr in the past, the Liberals voted in favour of our Conservative motion to record the IRGC as a terrorist group.
When will the Liberals cease tolerating this murderous regime, take a stand for human rights and eventually listing the IRGC?
Mrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Security and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Legal Code itemizing regime is a vital device for countering terrorism and is part of the federal government’s commitment to keep Canadians protected.
The update to the listings is a vital step to struggle terrorism globally and be sure that Canada remains a protected and peaceable nation. There’s a prescribed step-by-step process. New entities are added once it has been determined that they meet the legal threshold.
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC):
Madam Speaker, earlier this week, I asked the federal government a question about whether it might listing the Iranian IRGC as a terrorist entity beneath the Felony Code. On June 12 of last yr, the federal government supported my motion to right away listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity. Up until now, the Liberals have completely did not act. When requested about this in question interval, the Liberals mired the dialogue in process and did not answer the direct question.
Subsequently, I need to ask the question once more. Is it the intention of the Liberals to listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity? I perceive they say the method is ongoing, however that they had no drawback voting for a motion to do it instantly. It has been virtually a yr. Have they changed their position or not? We want to know.
Right now, Professor Irwin Cotler, a former Liberal MP and minister, and in addition different representatives from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights have been on the Hill, as well as individuals who had been victims of the Iranian regime. All the victims who have been delivered to the Hill have been very supportive. As considered one of them put it, “Sanction all the oppressors”. They have been supportive of sanctioning those who have been involved in committing atrocities towards the Iranian individuals. These sanctions would target the IRGC and human rights abusers.
If it is just a matter of process for the federal government, then I’m wondering why it has not used Magnitsky sanctions. The Liberals have been very reluctant to deliver any type of sanctions towards Iran. Commendably, they’ve introduced Magnitsky sanctions towards human rights abusers in other instances, but they haven’t completed so towards Iran. It is extremely hanging. If there are sanctions imposed towards different human rights abusers however no motion on Iran, both Magnitsky sanctions or the sanction of the IRGC, it starts to color a disturbing picture. It begins to make us marvel if it isn’t just a matter of process or a matter of coverage. Subsequently, once more, when will the Liberals record the IRGC? Is it nonetheless their intention to record the IRGC?
Irwin Cotler and the Raoul Wallenberg group gave us an inventory at our assembly of 19 oppressors whom they want to see listed underneath Magnitsky sanctions. I might undergo the federal government as nicely that its failure to sanction any oppressors in Iran is telling and the government should move forward on both of those fronts.
The names on the centre’s advised listing of individuals to sanction underneath the Magnitsky act are Mahmoud Alavi, minister of intelligence; Hossein Ashtari, chief of the regulation enforcement pressure; Seyyed Alireza Avaei, minister of justice; Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi; Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, minister of the interior; Hassan Firouzabadi, senior army adviser to the supreme leader; Gholamhossein Gheibparvar; Mansour Gholami; Asghar Jahangir; Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi; Sadegh Amoli Larijani, the chief justice of Iran; Asghar Mir-Hejazi; Mohammad Moghiseh; Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei; Mostafa Pourmohammadi; Ebrahim Raisi; Abolghassem Salavati; Abbas Salehi; and Sohrab Soleimani. I apologize for the mispronunciation of their names, though they are in all probability more bothered by the fact that I am proposing that they be sanctioned than they are by the mispronunciation.
Again, I call on the government to clarify its Iran policy. Does the federal government intend to listing the IRGC, as it voted to on June 12, yes or no? Why has it not proceeded with any sanctions towards oppressors, be it IRGC, or sanctions beneath the Magnitsky act?
Mr. Sean Fraser (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Setting and Local weather Change, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the federal government is committed to making sure that Canada takes all applicable actions to counter terrorist threats to our country, our individuals, our way of life and our interests around the globe.
I can assure the hon. member that officials have been working diligently to evaluate the potential of listing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps beneath the Legal Code. Assessing an entity for itemizing is an iterative process that requires a radical assessment.
Beneath the Legal Code, an entity should meet the authorized threshold of affordable grounds to consider they’ve knowingly carried out, attempted to hold out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity or is knowingly appearing on behalf of, at the course of, or in association with a listed entity. This is decided by getting ready a legal or security intelligence report, which documents the entity’s actions. The report is reviewed by unbiased counsel on the Department of Justice to make sure that the entity meets the legal threshold for listing. If the Minister of Public Safety agrees that this authorized check is met, he might advocate to cabinet that the entity be listed.
When an entity is positioned on the record, banks and financial institutions freeze its belongings, and Canadians are usually not allowed to knowingly cope with such belongings. Once listed, an entity falls inside the definition of a terrorist group in the Felony Code. This will render sure terrorism-related offences relevant and will help to help potential legal investigations and prosecutions of these offences. This consists of offences associated to terrorist financing, recruitment and coaching and leaving Canada to knowingly take part in a terrorist exercise.
Itemizing an entity underneath the Legal Code is likely one of the many tools Canada makes use of to fight terrorist financing, operations and help for terrorist actions.
There are restrictive measures already imposed towards entities and individuals inside the IRGC and towards Iran that have an impact just like an inventory. These embrace the listing of the IRGC’s special forces as a terrorist entity underneath the Felony Code. These forces are the department of the IRGC liable for extraterritorial operations and are Iran’s main mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorist teams and operations abroad. They provide arms, funding and paramilitary training to other listed groups, together with the Taliban, the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Common Front for the Liberation of Palestine-Common Command, all of which are additionally listed underneath the Felony Code.
Different present measures towards the IRGC embrace the sanctions imposed underneath the Particular Economic Measures Act. People and entities listed underneath this laws are subject to an asset freeze and a dealing prohibition. In addition, the laws explicitly goal IRGC organizations, such as the IRGC Air Drive, Missile Command and Navy and a number of other members of its senior management.
Furthermore, Canada has listed Iran as a state supporter of terrorism beneath the State Immunity Act. This listing allows victims of terrorism a way to seek monetary compensation from Iran.
Members might be assured that Canada is taking a look at all attainable choices to constrain the activities of Iran that threaten nationwide safety, and we continue to think about whether or not and to what extent an inventory is the suitable mechanism.
Mr. Garnett Genuis:
Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my pal, I know he’s the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Setting and Climate Change, and I might assume that he has so much on his plate in phrases of these information. It will have been good if the federal government confirmed the significance with which it treats this problem by having somebody concerned in overseas affairs or public security respond to my questions.
It ought to be well known to those who work on these information that the IRGC has engaged in all these activities. One other evaluate of the method for itemizing, when the federal government stated a yr ago that it might instantly listing the IRGC, is simply less than what Canadians anticipate.
It seems like the government is making an attempt to cover behind long process explanations. Why can it not simply reply the question? If the Liberals voted to do it a yr ago, why can they not get it accomplished?
Why have additionally they did not sanction individuals underneath the Magnitsky Act? They haven’t used the Magnitsky Act, they have not sanctioned the IRGC, and the sanctions the member talked about have been all sanctions put in place by the earlier authorities. Congratulations, the Liberals have not removed any of the sanctions the Conservatives put in place—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):
Unfortunately, the time is up. I should permit the hon. parliamentary secretary to reply.
Mr. Sean Fraser:
Madam Speaker, with respect to the opening comment, I want to point out to the hon. member that I am capable of answering the question. I’ve an educational background in public international regulation and I perceive the problems at play and the federal government does take them significantly.
Itemizing a person or a gaggle as a terrorist entity is a public means of identifying their involvement with terrorism and curbing their help, however itemizing is just one element of the worldwide and domestic response to terrorism.
With that in thoughts, I need to reiterate that Canada has already taken motion towards Iran and the IRGC particularly, reminiscent of itemizing their particular forces liable for extraterritorial actions. These actions are broadly according to our international partners, who have designated elements of the IRGC beneath their very own sanctions regimes.
I additionally need to restate that the evaluation course of for potential listings is ongoing whilst I converse. Before motion is taken, the listing process does require the required due diligence.
I need to assure the hon. member that we are taking all steps to ensure that Canadians are stored protected and that we aren’t put beneath pointless menace from terrorist actions overseas.
Iran Relations and Normalization Bill: First Studying
Hon. David Tkachuk introduced Bill S-261, An Act to offer a framework for the lifting of sanctions towards Iran by way of the institution of benchmarks referring to Iranian behaviour in respect of terrorism, human rights violations and incitement to hatred and to determine measures to carry Iran to account for the continuation of any misconduct.
(Invoice learn first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this invoice be learn the second time?
(On movement of Senator Tkachuk, bill positioned on the Orders of the Day for second studying two days therefore.)
Overseas Affairs and Worldwide Trade
Israel—Defence towards Attacks—Iranian Help of Hamas
Hon. Linda Frum: Honourable senators, my question is for the Chief of the Government in the Senate. Last week, the Iranian-sponsored terrorist regime, Hamas, launched 690 rockets into Israel in a concentrated barrage that killed 4 Israelis. Senator More durable, does your government consider that the Israeli individuals have the fitting to defend themselves towards such unprovoked and murderous attacks?
Hon. Peter More durable (Authorities Consultant in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for her question. She is going to know that this authorities, together with all earlier governments that I can recall, have constantly supported the correct of self-defence for the federal government and the individuals of Israel. These occasions are tragic. They bear consequences that we’re all involved with. This latest example is one which any authorities would condemn.
Senator Frum: I thank you for that answer and I do know you imply it sincerely. I observe that after an identical assault towards Israel last yr, Prime Minister Trudeau denounced Israel for having an excessive response and he referred to as for an unbiased inquiry into the IDF’s response.
I’m joyful to hear you agree that Israel can’t let Hamas kill its residents. We all know Hamas is just a puppet for the Iranian Mullah regime. I’d wish to know what your government intends to do to use strain on Iran to cease their blatant help of terrorist entities resembling Hamas.
Senator More durable: Again, I thank the honourable senator for her query. I might additionally like to deal with the preamble to the question.
It’s necessary that we emphasize that not simply this authorities but other governments of Canada have, occasionally, cautioned parties in disputes like this to not have a disproportionate response in conditions which might be so infected. It’s commonplace.
With respect to the precise question, there are two elements. One is to recall the response of Minister Goodale earlier this week to an analogous query with regard to Iran. Honourable senators will know that, in his response, he not solely enumerated the steps the federal government has taken but in addition the work underneath means with respect to future steps that the government might take.
The other point I want to make with respect to Iran is that, in the Authorities of Canada’s view, it is in our collective interests to work with like-minded nations to convey strain to bear on Iran not solely with respect to the help that they’re providing outdoors of their territory but in addition different problems with excessive significance, together with making certain that the nuclear deal to which they’re a signatory remains strong and enforced.
Orders of the Day
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Invoice to Amend—Third Studying—Debate
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wetston, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pratte, for the third studying of Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Settlement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to different Acts.
Hon. Linda Frum: Honourable senators, I rise to talk to Invoice C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Commerce Agreement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to different Acts.
As I famous in my second reading speech, the negotiations that led to this settlement have been initiated in 2014 underneath the former authorities, with the goal of broadening our bilateral trade agreement with Israel. They have been accomplished in July 2015 with 4 chapters in the original settlement having been up to date and with an enlargement of the free commerce settlement to include seven new chapters.
These discussions with undertaken to build on the significant success of the unique Canada-Israel Free Commerce Settlement which has permitted two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Israel to triple over the past 20 years. It was greater than $1.9 billion last yr.
I respect the fact that the current authorities worked to finalize the small print of this necessary expanded agreement.
What we’ve got in the invoice represents a genuinely bipartisan strategy on the difficulty of Canada-Israel relations.
I consider that such an strategy on any overseas coverage or commerce situation is all the time useful for Canada because it ensures policy consistency and certainty. Such consistency strengthens Canada’s hand internationally, and it finally benefits all Canadians.
Certainty is likely one of the most necessary issues any authorities can provide to business.
It’s ironic that the federal government seems to have partially understood that precept with regards to worldwide commerce initiatives, however yet has not brought an analogous understanding to the need for a secure legal and regulatory surroundings in Canada that can appeal to overseas funding.
In relation to Canada’s economic prosperity, these are actually two sides of the identical coin. We can’t anticipate to completely profit from trade agreements, such as the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, if we don’t have a complementary and equally engaging investment regime.
I hope that very quickly we could have a government in Canada that recognizes this. Within the meantime, we will at the least all agree that Invoice C-85, and an expanded Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, deserves help.
I want to tackle some of Senator Saint-Germain’s observations in her speech the other day. She advised that Bill C-85 should have employed language just like the EU‑Israel trade settlement as it pertains to Israeli goods that originate beyond the Inexperienced Line.
I want to draw to her consideration that in 1997, the original CIFTA was particularly drafted to mirror the truth that Israel and the territories are treated as a single economic unit beneath the Protocol on Economic Relations between Israel and the P.L.O., referred to as Paris Protocol, signed in 1994 as part of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement and later included into the Oslo II Accords.
It is sensible that Israeli and Palestinian leaders have established a customs union, given the wide-ranging integration of the Israeli and Palestinian economies. Israel is a main market for Palestinian items. More than 100,000 Palestinians are employed in Israeli companies. The Paris Protocol has contributed to vital funding, economic cooperation and progress in the West Bank financial system.
Underneath CIFTA, and in line with the Paris Protocol, Palestinian exports to Canada profit from preferential remedy. Shortly after CIFTA was first signed, Canada and the PLO established a Joint Canadian-Palestinian Framework for Economic Cooperation and Trade, beneath which the Palestinian management authorised the extension of preferential tariffs, including future trade advantages by means of CIFTA to the West Bank and Gaza.
Requiring totally different labels for products originating in the West Financial institution and Gaza might endanger these positive aspects for Palestinian business. For my part, that may be regrettable.
Additionally, I might observe that it’s the hateful BDS Motion which want to see Israel isolated inside the international group and which has advocated in favour of making use of labels to goods originating in the disputed territories. I don’t consider that this chamber or the Canadian government ought to be supporting the BDS Motion, which is why I help adopting Invoice C-85 in its present type.
Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, immediately I rise to talk to Invoice C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and to make associated amendments to other Acts.
I need to thank Senator Wetston for answering my question on the absence of human rights provisions in this settlement. I additionally need to thank Senator Saint-Germain for her incisive observations on this invoice, which I share, for probably the most half. For example, I agreed with Senator Saint-Germain the day earlier than yesterday when she stated:
Buying and selling with the Israeli settlements in the territories occupied by Israel supports the development and unlawful enlargement of those territories to the detriment of the Palestinian financial system.
I consider that is elementary.
In the debate on free trade with Israel, I also agree with Senator Saint-Germain when she stated that it is vital, and I quote:
. . . that commerce policy is carried out in protecting with its rules and duties with respect to elementary rights.
Colleagues, on the finish of my speech I’ll move an modification to the purpose clause in this invoice, including a quick reference to human rights, modelled on what each Canada and Israel have already committed to in different comparable and current agreements, including the settlement between america of America, the United Mexican States and Canada, previously NAFTA, and Canada’s free trade agreement with Colombia in addition to Israel’s agreement with the European Union.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other human rights watchdog associations have noted that after Israel’s army occupation of the West Financial institution in 1967, the Israeli government began and continues to involve personal companies in establishing settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. So the difficulty of labour and human rights observance is very related to the bill before us, as is the case in the examples I share as we speak.
I observe that the 2017 EU-Israel Association Agreement incorporates a human rights provision, which is used to watch for attainable human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territory. There have been findings of human rights violations which might be in breach of worldwide human rights regulation and norms. Including a reference to human rights in this invoice is in step with Canada’s dedication in follow and in regulation to a world governance order that promotes and protects common human rights.
Please think about that clause three(d) of the prevailing objective clause that I suggest we amend has various verbs conveying a better degree of obligation than the verb “build” that’s in proposed clause three(d), the one a part of the invoice that I propose we amend. The aim clause is just not lengthy, so I will summarize key textual content in the aim clause noting where my modification can be placed, and I invite you to think about that the intent and values already set out in the purpose clause are usually not undermined or distorted by the proposed modification.
In truth, this amendment would permit for implementation of this settlement according to other elements of the aim clause and with what Canada does in different present trade agreements.
By amending subclause (d) on page 2 of Invoice C-85, the phrases in Section 4, the purpose clause of the act, are untouched as a result of my proposed amendment is to add “and human rights,” and in French, “les droits de la personne” — to subclause (d) of the purpose clause in order that it might read:
The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement, the goals of which, as elaborated more particularly by means of its provisions, are to
(a) strengthen the bilateral business relationship between Canada and the State of Israel;
(b) improve entry to the Israeli marketplace for Canadian businesses by decreasing and eliminating tariffs, addressing non-tariff obstacles, enhancing cooperation and growing transparency in regulatory matters;
(c) ensure a excessive degree of environmental safety by means of complete and legally-binding commitments;
And this is the clause that I suggest to amend:
(d) construct on the respective international commitments of Canada and the State of Israel on labour —
And then I propose that we add, “and human rights matters;” and
(e) promote gender equality and encourage ladies’s financial empowerment and using voluntary corporate social duty requirements and rules, as well as promote entry for small and medium-sized enterprises to the opportunities created by the Settlement.
Colleagues, by adding the words “and human rights” to subclause (d) of clause 4 of the prevailing function clause, we might not be adding to present international human rights commitments but simply acknowledging the prevailing commitments already made by Canada and Israel with each nations having ratified all the identical human rights devices for decades.
Colleagues, you’ll have observed that the amendment I am proposing now’s totally different from what was initially discussed. It’s because, after further discussion with colleagues and reviewing further legal advice, I approached the aim clause with a recent perspective that led me to the decision to suggest the addition of three words in English and five words in French to an present subclause somewhat than including a completely new clause. This modification simply clarifies that each nations will build on present labour and human rights commitments.
To put this motion in context, let’s take a quick take a look at three different current agreements, one which Israel has made with the European Union and two that Canada has made with other nations. Within the EU-Israel Association Settlement in pressure in 2017, article 2 stipulates:
Relations between the Parties, in addition to all of the provisions of the Settlement itself, shall be based mostly on respect for human rights and democratic rules, which guides their inner and international coverage and constitutes a vital factor of this Agreement.
In the agreement between Canada and Colombia, there’s an agreement concerning annual reviews on human rights and free commerce between Canada and the Republic of Colombia wherein each nation has committed to drafting an annual report for tabling in their respective legislatures on the consequences on human rights in each Canada and Colombia of measures taken underneath the Canada-Colombia Free Commerce Settlement.
The U.S.-Mexico-Canada settlement that changed NAFTA last yr accommodates article 23.3 that goes into considerable detail, but the important thing comparison is to note the robust obligatory language in this article:
Each Celebration shall undertake and keep in its statutes and laws, and practices thereunder, the following rights. . .
And it goes on to record freedom of association, the best to collective bargaining, the elimination of all types of pressured and obligatory labour, the effective abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
Colleagues, I feel you possibly can see from these examples that I am not proposing any such compulsory language because this isn’t the time for Canada to go back to the desk on this specific trade deal, however it is timely and applicable for Canada to be constant and to acknowledge present human rights agreements ratified by both Canada and Israel as a way of strengthening the purpose of the Canada-Israel Free Commerce Agreement.
By comparison, every of the word-for-word examples from three other present agreements that I’ve quoted to you is extra stringent than what I am proposing for Invoice C-85. Nobody has been capable of clarify why the Canada-Israel Free Commerce Agreement doesn’t embrace any reference to human rights. However certainly the implementation objectives of the settlement are, in reality, strengthened by clarifying that the purpose of this agreement, as can be set out in an amended section 4 of the act, would include to construct on the respective worldwide commitments of Canada and the State of Israel on labour and human rights matters.
Motion in Modification Negatived
Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Subsequently, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Invoice C-85 be not now learn a 3rd time, however that it’s amended in clause 3, on web page 2,
a) by including to line 9 after the phrase “labour” the words “and human rights”.
I hope you’ll agree that a problem of such significance is worthy of a standing vote and no less than one among you’ll stand with me to cause such a vote to be held on this proposed human rights modification to Bill C-85.
Thank you, meegwetch.
The Hon. the Speaker: In modification, it was moved by the Honourable Senator McPhedran, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, that Bill C-85 be not read a 3rd time — might I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Boehm, on debate.
Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Thank you very a lot, Senator McPhedran, for introducing the amendment, and I know you and I have had conversations on this. I needed to put my perspective on the document.
What this bill does, in fact, is enact the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, which is a negotiated settlement between two states events.
The purpose is about out, as Senator McPhedran has stated in the purpose clause, and there are numerous clauses and subclauses there.
The subclauses seek advice from chapters inside the actual agreement. Chapter 11 refers to commerce and surroundings. Trade and labour, or labour, is dealt with in chapter 12. Gender and gender equality in chapter 13. There isn’t any chapter on human rights in the agreement.
In my expertise in my earlier life, the joy of working with Israel was all the time that, as two mature democracies, we might have full and frank discussions on human rights, which we do. We do this at the head of presidency degree, at senior officials and ministers levels. It consists of discussions on the occupied territories, on what’s past the green line, on Gaza, on what is occurring in neighbouring nations. I might submit that dialogue is full and, in reality, quite fulsome.
For my part, I don’t assume that an amendment is important in subclause (d), as a result of subclause (d) was put in there and accepted in the other place to introduce the labour factor, which refers, in reality, to chapter 12, trade and labour, in the actual agreement. I just needed to get my views on the report. Thank you.
Hon. Jane Cordy: Senator Boehm, would you’re taking a question?
Senator Boehm: Definitely.
Senator Cordy: Thanks. I do know in your earlier life you’d have had expertise at the least dealing with free commerce agreements. I’m involved that it’s very troublesome to amend a free trade settlement when nations, like Canada and Israel in this case, determine they’re going to either update a trade settlement or create a brand new one, whatever the case could also be. Each nations have delegates working together to make this free trade agreement. If we amended it, would Israel not also need to amend it?
My understanding is that there are challenges and that, in Parliament, we either accept the free commerce settlement or we reject the free trade agreement. It’s very difficult to truly amend a free commerce agreement.
Senator Boehm: Thank you for the query, Senator Cordy. In truth, nations have alternative ways of legislatively enabling free commerce agreements. The purpose I was making an attempt to make is that there isn’t a human rights chapter in right here. Have been there to be one, then Israel would enact it, we’ve got negotiated it with Israel.
To signal now what we’re signalling, or that’s the intention, that there must be more discussion on human rights, I might say that we’ve these discussions already. Adding human rights now in the aim, as Senator McPhedran has indicated, may ship a bit of a confusing observe as to what we’re truly making an attempt to realize in giving legislative approval to an settlement that may turn into a regulation between two nations.
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: I’d wish to ask a query of the senator. Would he settle for one?
Senator Boehm: Yes, in fact.
Senator Andreychuk: I help your perspective that we don’t isolate human rights all the time. We work at it as and once we can. That’s all the time been the Canadian strategy.
Would you not agree with me that we have now started to make use of the time period “human rights” and “embedded,” however it’s not meaningless if it isn’t carried out in some way and translated. I help your premise. My difference is that this: Once we help labour rights, once we put in gender equality, once we speak concerning the surroundings, the financial system, and about jobs, those are elements of human rights. We have already got constructed in the levers to find out what is acceptable and what is inside our ideas of furthering human rights in each chapter of that agreement.
Senator Boehm: Thanks for the query, Senator Andreychuk. I do, in reality, agree with you. I was simply wanting at the numerous chapters, and in each — definitely the one on labour and gender — there are ideas there for enlargement and for deepening the dialogue and, in reality, having panels to discuss these issues.
The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Query.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the movement?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Hon. the Speaker: I will ask yet one more time. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to undertake the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Hon. the Speaker: For my part, the “nays” have it.
I see one senator rising. The movement is defeated.
(Motion in modification of the Honourable Senator McPhedran negatived, on division.)
Invoice to Amend—Third Reading
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the movement of the Honourable Senator Wetston, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pratte, for the third studying of Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Commerce Settlement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to undertake the movement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and invoice learn third time and handed.)
The Senate: Motion to Urge the Government to Cease Diplomatic Relations with Iran—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith:
That, in mild of the Authorities of Canada’s current vital shift in its overseas policy referring to Iran, which doesn’t mirror the Senate’s current determination to reject the rules of Bill S-219, An Act to discourage Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations, together with an annual report of Iranian human rights violations, the Senate now:
a) strongly condemn the present regime in Iran for its ongoing sponsorship of terrorism around the globe, including instigating violent assaults on the Gaza border;
b) condemn the current statements made by Supreme Chief Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for genocide towards the Jewish individuals;
c) call on the federal government to:
(i) abandon its current plan and immediately cease any and all negotiations or discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran to restore diplomatic relations;
(ii) demand that the Iranian Regime immediately release all Canadians and Canadian permanent residents who’re presently detained in Iran, including Maryam Mombeini, the widow of Professor Kavous Sayed-Emami, and Saeed
Malekpour, who has been imprisoned since 2008; and (iii) instantly designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a listed terrorist entity beneath the Felony Code of Canada; and
d) stand with the individuals of Iran and recognize that they, like all individuals, have a elementary proper to freedom of conscience and faith, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, together with freedom of the press and other forms of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.
Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I word that this merchandise is on day 15 and I’m not ready to speak right now. With depart of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(three), I move the adjournment of the talk for the stability of my time.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is depart granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Indigenous Languages Bill: First Studying
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been acquired from the House of Commons with Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages.
(Invoice read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
(On motion of Senator More durable, invoice placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)
Contacting Members of the House of Commons
Find your Member of Parliament’s contact info right here.
Find contact info for Senators right here.