- 1 Home of Commons
- 2 Senate
- 2.1 Routine Proceedings
- 2.2 Question Period
- 2.3 Orders of the Day
- 2.4 Bill to Amend—Third Studying
- 2.5 The Senate: Motion to Urge the Government to Stop Diplomatic Relations with Iran—Debate Continued
- 2.6 Indigenous Languages Invoice: First Reading
- 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 issues?
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. In case your society relies on slave labour, then recognizing the humanity of enslaved individuals is inconvenient, although it is morally right.
Other societies have used dehumanization to justify the expropriation of property from minorities or different types of exploitation.
Typically it is inconvenient to recognize the weak as human because it’s pricey to assist and help them.
Our assessment of who’s human shouldn’t rely upon comfort; it should mirror goal reality.
Essential occasions are happening on Parliament Hill right now, where individuals gather to talk out concerning the mass killing of innocents by the Iranian regime, as part of Iran Accountability Week.
It might not all the time be convenient for us to take a stand towards that regime, however it’s one thing we must do. We should stand towards the dehumanization efforts of that regime, and be sure that common immutable human dignity is recognized 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 personal inhabitants. It goes far beyond interfering with its Center East neighbours. Additionally it is terrorizing Canadians, corresponding to radio host Narges Ghaffari, by forcing relations in Iran to move on the message of “Cease your activism”, in order that, because the saying goes, “no one will get harm”.
A yr in the past, the Liberals voted in favour of our Conservative movement to listing 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 Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Felony Code itemizing regime is a vital software for countering terrorism and is part of the government’s commitment to keep Canadians protected.
The replace to the listings is a vital step to battle terrorism globally and be sure that Canada remains a protected and peaceful country. There is a prescribed step-by-step process. New entities are added once it has been determined that they meet the authorized threshold.
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC):
Madam Speaker, earlier this week, I requested the federal government a query about whether or not it will record the Iranian IRGC as a terrorist entity beneath the Felony Code. On June 12 of final yr, the federal government supported my movement to right away listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity. Up till now, the Liberals have completely did not act. When requested about this in question period, the Liberals mired the discussion in course of and did not answer the direct query.
Subsequently, I need to ask the question once more. Is it the intention of the Liberals to record the IRGC as a terrorist entity? I perceive they say the method is ongoing, but that they had no drawback voting for a motion to do it instantly. It has been virtually a yr. Have they changed their place or not? We want to know.
At present, 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, in addition to 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.
Whether it is just a matter of course of for the government, then I’m wondering why it has not used Magnitsky sanctions. The Liberals have been very reluctant to convey any sort of sanctions towards Iran. Commendably, they have brought Magnitsky sanctions towards human rights abusers in different instances, but they haven’t executed so towards Iran. It is rather hanging. If there are sanctions imposed towards different human rights abusers but no action on Iran, either Magnitsky sanctions or the sanction of the IRGC, it starts to paint a disturbing image. It starts to make us marvel if it isn’t only a matter of process or a matter of policy. Subsequently, once more, when will the Liberals listing 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 beneath Magnitsky sanctions. I might undergo the federal government as nicely that its failure to sanction any oppressors in Iran is telling and the federal government should move ahead on both of those fronts.
The names on the centre’s recommended record of individuals to sanction beneath 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 chief; 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 extra bothered by the fact that I am proposing that they be sanctioned than they are by the mispronunciation.
Once more, I name on the federal government to make clear its Iran coverage. Does the government intend to record 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 underneath the Magnitsky act?
Mr. Sean Fraser (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Setting and Climate Change, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the federal government is committed to ensuring that Canada takes all applicable actions to counter terrorist threats to our nation, our individuals, our way of life and our interests all over the world.
I can assure the hon. member that officials have been working diligently to assess the potential of listing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps underneath the Legal Code. Assessing an entity for itemizing is an iterative process that requires a radical assessment.
Underneath the Felony Code, an entity must meet the authorized threshold of affordable grounds to consider they’ve knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist exercise or is knowingly appearing on behalf of, at the path of, or in affiliation with a listed entity. This is decided by getting ready a legal or safety intelligence report, which paperwork the entity’s activities. The report is reviewed by unbiased counsel at the Division of Justice to make sure that the entity meets the legal threshold for itemizing. If the Minister of Public Safety agrees that this legal check is met, he might advocate to cabinet that the entity be listed.
When an entity is positioned on the record, banks and monetary establishments freeze its belongings, and Canadians usually are not allowed to knowingly cope with such belongings. As soon as listed, an entity falls inside the definition of a terrorist group within the Legal Code. This could render certain terrorism-related offences applicable and might help to help attainable 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 activity.
Listing an entity beneath the Felony Code is among the many tools Canada makes use of to fight terrorist financing, operations and help for terrorist activities.
There are restrictive measures already imposed towards entities and individuals inside the IRGC and towards Iran that have an effect just like an inventory. These embrace the listing of the IRGC’s particular forces as a terrorist entity beneath the Felony Code. These forces are the branch 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 teams, together with the Taliban, the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Common Entrance for the Liberation of Palestine-Basic Command, all of which are additionally listed underneath the Legal Code.
Other present measures towards the IRGC embrace the sanctions imposed beneath the Particular Financial Measures Act. People and entities listed underneath this legislation are subject to an asset freeze and a dealing prohibition. In addition, the laws explicitly goal IRGC organizations, such because 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 underneath the State Immunity Act. This itemizing permits victims of terrorism a way to seek monetary compensation from Iran.
Members could be assured that Canada is taking a look at all potential options to constrain the actions of Iran that threaten national safety, and we proceed 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 good friend, I know he’s the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Surroundings and Climate Change, and I might assume that he has so much on his plate when it comes to those information. It might have been good if the government confirmed the significance with which it treats this concern by having someone concerned in overseas affairs or public security respond to my questions.
It must be well-known to those that work on these information that the IRGC has engaged in all these actions. One other evaluation of the method for itemizing, when the government stated a yr ago that it will immediately record the IRGC, is simply less than what Canadians anticipate.
It seems to be like the federal government is making an attempt to cover behind long course of explanations. Why can it not simply answer the query? If the Liberals voted to do it a yr in the past, why can they not get it accomplished?
Why have additionally they did not sanction individuals beneath the Magnitsky Act? They have not used the Magnitsky Act, they haven’t sanctioned the IRGC, and the sanctions the member talked about have been all sanctions put in place by the previous government. Congratulations, the Liberals haven’t removed any of the sanctions the Conservatives put in place—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):
Sadly, the time is up. I should permit the hon. parliamentary secretary to respond.
Mr. Sean Fraser:
Madam Speaker, with respect to the opening comment, I want to point out to the hon. member that I am able to answering the question. I’ve a tutorial background in public worldwide regulation and I perceive the issues at play and the government does take them critically.
Listing a person or a gaggle as a terrorist entity is a public technique of figuring out their involvement with terrorism and curbing their help, however listing 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 action towards Iran and the IRGC specifically, resembling itemizing their particular forces chargeable for extraterritorial activities. These actions are broadly according to our worldwide companions, who have designated elements of the IRGC beneath their very own sanctions regimes.
I additionally need to restate that the assessment course of for attainable listings is ongoing whilst I converse. Earlier than motion is taken, the itemizing process does require the required due diligence.
I need to assure the hon. member that we are taking all steps to make sure that Canadians are stored protected and that we aren’t put beneath pointless menace from terrorist actions abroad.
Iran Relations and Normalization Invoice: First Reading
Hon. David Tkachuk introduced Invoice S-261, An Act to offer a framework for the lifting of sanctions towards Iran by means of the establishment of benchmarks referring to Iranian behaviour in respect of terrorism, human rights violations and incitement to hatred and to determine measures to hold Iran to account for the continuation of any misconduct.
(Bill read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this invoice be learn the second time?
(On movement of Senator Tkachuk, invoice placed on the Orders of the Day for second studying two days hence.)
Overseas Affairs and Worldwide Commerce
Israel—Defence towards Assaults—Iranian Help of Hamas
Hon. Linda Frum: Honourable senators, my query is for the Leader of the Authorities in the Senate. Last week, the Iranian-sponsored terrorist regime, Hamas, launched 690 rockets into Israel in a concentrated barrage that killed four 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 (Government Consultant within the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for her query. She is going to know that this government, along with all earlier governments that I can recall, have constantly supported the appropriate of self-defence for the government and the individuals of Israel. These events are tragic. They bear penalties that we’re all involved with. This newest example is one which any government would condemn.
Senator Frum: I thanks for that answer and I do know you mean it sincerely. I observe that after an identical attack towards Israel last yr, Prime Minister Trudeau denounced Israel for having an extreme response and he referred to as for an unbiased inquiry into the IDF’s response.
I’m glad to listen to you agree that Israel can’t let Hamas kill its citizens. We all know Hamas is only a puppet for the Iranian Mullah regime. I’d wish to know what your authorities intends to do to apply strain on Iran to stop their blatant help of terrorist entities corresponding to Hamas.
Senator More durable: Again, I thank the honourable senator for her question. I might additionally like to deal with the preamble to the question.
It’s necessary that we emphasize that not just this government but different governments of Canada have, sometimes, cautioned events in disputes like this not to have a disproportionate response in situations which are so inflamed. It’s commonplace.
With respect to the precise query, 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 only enumerated the steps the government has taken but in addition the work underneath approach with respect to future steps that the government might take.
The opposite level I want to make with respect to Iran is that, within the Government of Canada’s view, it’s in our collective pursuits to work with like-minded nations to deliver strain to bear on Iran not solely with respect to the help that they’re offering outdoors of their territory but in addition different issues of excessive importance, together with making certain that the nuclear deal to which they’re a signatory stays strong and enforced.
Orders of the Day
Canada-Israel Free Commerce 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 reading of Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and to make associated amendments to different Acts.
Hon. Linda Frum: Honourable senators, I rise to talk to Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
As I noted in my second reading speech, the negotiations that led to this agreement have been initiated in 2014 underneath the previous government, with the goal of broadening our bilateral commerce settlement with Israel. They have been accomplished in July 2015 with four chapters in the unique settlement having been updated and with an enlargement of the free trade settlement to include seven new chapters.
These discussions with undertaken to construct on the numerous 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 more than $1.9 billion final yr.
I recognize the fact that the present authorities worked to finalize the small print of this essential expanded settlement.
What we now have in the bill represents a genuinely bipartisan strategy on the difficulty of Canada-Israel relations.
I consider that such an strategy on any overseas policy 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 present to business.
It is ironic that the federal government seems to have partially understood that principle with regards to international trade initiatives, however but has not brought an analogous understanding to the necessity for a secure authorized and regulatory setting in Canada that may appeal to overseas funding.
In terms of Canada’s economic prosperity, these are really two sides of the identical coin. We can’t anticipate to completely benefit from trade agreements, such as the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, if we shouldn’t have a complementary and equally engaging investment regime.
I hope that very soon we may have a authorities in Canada that acknowledges this. In the meantime, we will a minimum of all agree that Bill C-85, and an expanded Canada-Israel Free Commerce Settlement, deserves help.
I want to tackle a few of Senator Saint-Germain’s observations in her speech the opposite day. She steered that Bill C-85 ought to 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 attention that in 1997, the unique CIFTA was particularly drafted to mirror the truth that Israel and the territories are treated as a single economic unit beneath the Protocol on Financial Relations between Israel and the P.L.O., often known as Paris Protocol, signed in 1994 as a part of the Gaza-Jericho Settlement 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 marketplace for Palestinian items. Greater than 100,000 Palestinians are employed in Israeli companies. The Paris Protocol has contributed to vital investment, financial cooperation and progress within the West Bank financial system.
Beneath CIFTA, and in line with the Paris Protocol, Palestinian exports to Canada benefit from preferential remedy. Shortly after CIFTA was first signed, Canada and the PLO established a Joint Canadian-Palestinian Framework for Economic Cooperation and Commerce, beneath which the Palestinian management permitted the extension of preferential tariffs, including future commerce benefits by way 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 good points for Palestinian enterprise. For my part, that may be regrettable.
Also, I might notice 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 items originating in the disputed territories. I don’t consider that this chamber or the Canadian authorities must be supporting the BDS Motion, which is why I help adopting Invoice C-85 in its current type.
Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, in the present day I rise to talk to Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Commerce Agreement Implementation Act and to make related 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 instance, I agreed with Senator Saint-Germain the day earlier than yesterday when she stated:
Trading with the Israeli settlements in the territories occupied by Israel helps the development and unlawful enlargement of those territories to the detriment of the Palestinian financial system.
I consider this is elementary.
In the debate on free commerce with Israel, I additionally agree with Senator Saint-Germain when she stated that it’s needed, and I quote:
. . . that commerce policy is carried out in line 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, adding a quick reference to human rights, modelled on what each Canada and Israel have already committed to in different comparable and current agreements, together with the agreement between the USA of America, the United Mexican States and Canada, formerly NAFTA, and Canada’s free commerce agreement with Colombia in addition to Israel’s agreement with the European Union.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Worldwide and different human rights watchdog associations have famous that after Israel’s army occupation of the West Bank in 1967, the Israeli government started 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 in the present day.
I word that the 2017 EU-Israel Association Agreement accommodates 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 international human rights regulation and norms. Including a reference to human rights in this invoice is according to Canada’s commitment 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 function clause that I suggest we amend has quite a lot of verbs conveying a better degree of obligation than the verb “build” that’s in proposed clause three(d), the one part of the bill that I suggest we amend. The purpose clause just isn’t long, so I will summarize key textual content within the objective clause noting the place my amendment can be positioned, and I invite you to think about that the intent and values already set out in the objective clause are usually not undermined or distorted by the proposed modification.
Actually, this modification would permit for implementation of this settlement in line with other elements of the purpose clause and with what Canada does in other current commerce agreements.
By amending subclause (d) on web page 2 of Bill C-85, the words in Section Four, the aim clause of the act, are untouched because my proposed amendment is so as to add “and human rights,” and in French, “les droits de la personne” — to subclause (d) of the aim clause so that it will read:
The aim of this Act is to implement the Settlement, the goals of which, as elaborated extra specifically by way of its provisions, are to
(a) strengthen the bilateral business relationship between Canada and the State of Israel;
(b) improve access to the Israeli market for Canadian companies by decreasing and eliminating tariffs, addressing non-tariff obstacles, enhancing cooperation and growing transparency in regulatory issues;
(c) ensure a excessive degree of environmental protection by way of comprehensive and legally-binding commitments;
And that is the clause that I propose to amend:
(d) build on the respective worldwide commitments of Canada and the State of Israel on labour —
And then I suggest that we add, “and human rights matters;” and
(e) promote gender equality and encourage ladies’s financial empowerment and using voluntary company social duty requirements and rules, in addition to promote access for small and medium-sized enterprises to the opportunities created by the Settlement.
Colleagues, by including the phrases “and human rights” to subclause (d) of clause Four of the prevailing objective clause, we might not be adding to present international human rights commitments but merely acknowledging the prevailing commitments already made by Canada and Israel with both nations having ratified all the identical human rights devices for decades.
Colleagues, you might have observed that the modification I am proposing now’s totally different from what was initially discussed. It’s because, after additional discussion with colleagues and reviewing further authorized recommendation, I approached the purpose clause with a recent perspective that led me to the choice to suggest the addition of three phrases in English and five phrases in French to an present subclause slightly than including a completely new clause. This modification simply clarifies that each nations will build on present labour and human rights commitments.
To place this motion in context, let’s take a fast take a look at three other current agreements, one which Israel has made with the European Union and two that Canada has made with different nations. In the EU-Israel Affiliation Settlement in pressure in 2017, article 2 stipulates:
Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Settlement itself, shall be based mostly on respect for human rights and democratic rules, which guides their inner and worldwide policy and constitutes a vital aspect of this Settlement.
Within the settlement between Canada and Colombia, there’s an agreement regarding annual stories on human rights and free trade between Canada and the Republic of Colombia wherein every nation has committed to drafting an annual report for tabling of their respective legislatures on the consequences on human rights in each Canada and Colombia of measures taken beneath the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Settlement.
The U.S.-Mexico-Canada settlement that changed NAFTA last yr incorporates article 23.3 that goes into appreciable element, but the key comparison is to note the robust compulsory language in this article:
Every Social gathering shall undertake and keep in its statutes and laws, and practices thereunder, the next rights. . .
And it goes on to record freedom of affiliation, the appropriate to collective bargaining, the elimination of all types of pressured and compulsory labour, the effective abolition of kid labour and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
Colleagues, I feel you possibly can see from these examples that I’m not proposing any such compulsory language because this is not the time for Canada to return to the table on this specific commerce deal, however it’s timely and applicable for Canada to be constant and to acknowledge present human rights agreements ratified by each Canada and Israel as a way of strengthening the aim of the Canada-Israel Free Commerce Settlement.
By comparison, every of the word-for-word examples from three other current agreements that I’ve quoted to you is extra stringent than what I am proposing for Bill C-85. Nobody has been capable of clarify why the Canada-Israel Free Commerce Settlement does not embrace any reference to human rights. But certainly the implementation objectives of the agreement are, in truth, strengthened by clarifying that the aim of this settlement, as can be set out in an amended part Four of the act, would come with to construct on the respective worldwide commitments of Canada and the State of Israel on labour and human rights matters.
Movement in Amendment Negatived
Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Subsequently, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Invoice C-85 be not now learn a 3rd time, but that it’s amended in clause three, on web page 2,
a) by adding to line 9 after the word “labour” the words “and human rights”.
I hope you’ll agree that a problem of such importance is worthy of a standing vote and a minimum of one in every of you’ll stand with me to trigger such a vote to be held on this proposed human rights modification to Bill C-85.
The Hon. the Speaker: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator McPhedran, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, that Bill C-85 be not read a third 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 modification, and I know you and I’ve had conversations on this. I needed to place my perspective on the document.
What this bill does, in fact, is enact the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, which is a negotiated agreement between two states parties.
The aim is about out, as Senator McPhedran has stated within the function clause, and there are various clauses and subclauses there.
The subclauses seek advice from chapters inside the precise settlement. Chapter 11 refers to trade and surroundings. Trade and labour, or labour, is handled in chapter 12. Gender and gender equality in chapter 13. There isn’t a chapter on human rights in the agreement.
In my expertise in my earlier life, the enjoyment 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 is past the inexperienced line, on Gaza, on what is occurring in neighbouring nations. I might submit that discussion is full and, in reality, fairly fulsome.
For my part, I do not assume that an modification is important in subclause (d), because subclause (d) was put in there and permitted within the different place to introduce the labour aspect, which refers, actually, to chapter 12, commerce and labour, in the actual settlement. 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 previous life you’d have had expertise at the least coping with free trade agreements. I’m involved that it’s very troublesome to amend a free trade agreement when nations, like Canada and Israel on this case, determine they’re going to both replace a trade settlement or create a new one, regardless of the case may be. Each nations have delegates working together to make this free commerce agreement. If we amended it, would Israel not also should amend it?
My understanding is that there are challenges and that, in Parliament, we either accept the free trade settlement or we reject the free trade agreement. It’s very difficult to truly amend a free commerce agreement.
Senator Boehm: Thanks for the question, Senator Cordy. The truth is, nations have alternative ways of legislatively enabling free trade agreements. The point 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 sign now what we’re signalling, or that’s the intention, that there ought to be extra discussion on human rights, I might say that we’ve got these discussions already. Including human rights now in the function, as Senator McPhedran has indicated, may ship a bit of a complicated notice as to what we’re truly making an attempt to realize in giving legislative approval to an settlement that may grow to be a regulation between two nations.
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: I’d wish to ask a query of the senator. Would he accept one?
Senator Boehm: Sure, in fact.
Senator Andreychuk: I help your perspective that we don’t isolate human rights on a regular basis. 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 began to use the time period “human rights” and “embedded,” nevertheless it’s not meaningless if it isn’t carried out ultimately and translated. I help your premise. My distinction is that this: Once we help labour rights, once we put in gender equality, once we speak concerning the setting, the financial system, and about jobs, those are elements of human rights. We already have constructed in the levers to find out what is acceptable and what’s within our concepts of furthering human rights in every chapter of that agreement.
Senator Boehm: Thanks for the query, Senator Andreychuk. I do, in reality, agree with you. I used to be just wanting on the numerous chapters, and in every — definitely the one on labour and gender — there are ideas there for enlargement and for deepening the dialogue and, in truth, having panels to debate these issues.
The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators prepared 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’ll 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.
(Movement in modification of the Honourable Senator McPhedran negatived, on division.)
Bill to Amend—Third Studying
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the movement of the Honourable Senator Wetston, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pratte, for the third reading of Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Commerce Settlement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to different Acts.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to undertake the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.)
The Senate: Motion to Urge the Government to Stop 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 Government of Canada’s current vital shift in its overseas policy referring to Iran, which does not mirror the Senate’s current determination to reject the rules of Invoice 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 current regime in Iran for its ongoing sponsorship of terrorism all over the world, together with instigating violent attacks on the Gaza border;
b) condemn the current statements made by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for genocide towards the Jewish individuals;
c) name on the government to:
(i) abandon its current plan and instantly cease any and all negotiations or discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran to revive diplomatic relations;
(ii) demand that the Iranian Regime immediately launch all Canadians and Canadian everlasting residents who are at present 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 underneath the Legal Code of Canada; and
d) stand with the individuals of Iran and acknowledge that they, like all individuals, have a elementary proper to freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other types of communication, freedom of peaceable assembly, and freedom of affiliation.
Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I observe that this item is on day 15 and I’m not ready to speak right now. With depart of the Senate and notwithstanding rule Four-15(three), I transfer 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 Invoice: First Reading
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.
(Bill read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be learn 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 here.
Find contact info for Senators here.