Justice Committee on Dec. 5th, 2023

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair, just so I can understand exactly what's being moved. The motion was to adjourn debate and move to Bill C-40, the discussion that was originally planned for this, but then to return to this...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

That's correct. That's the motion.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Just for clarification, a motion to adjourn is a dilatory motion; however, when adding other elements, as I believe Mr. Garrison did, does that mean it is no longer dilatory and there can be debate? I'm just wanting to make sure we're exactly following what the process is here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Well, if you'd like to debate it, go ahead.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

On the narrow motion that's been moved to adjourn debate on Mr. Moore's motion, I would simply, in the subject matter, concur with what Ms. Lantsman has said. I would hope that on an important issue such as this, and I understand Mr. Garrison's comments that there are competing important things.... That is certainly something that as parliamentarians we deal with on a daily basis. I would suggest that we have a host of important issues.

I would, however, urge the committee that if there is, in fact, the consensus that Mr. Garrison has suggested, if there is the ability to pass the motion that Mr. Moore moved and Ms. Lantsman spoke about, I don't see why we can't allow a discussion, which could be brief, assuming that there is the agreement that has been inferred. Certainly, I plan to be voting in support of this motion as described.

I would, however, question why it needs to be put on hold when we have it before the House today. We have a situation that continues to evolve, and I followed with great interest the circumstances that took place in the Maritimes about Hanukkah celebrations being disallowed and then, thankfully, the reversal of that decision. I know that I plan, with the Jewish community from Battle River—Crowfoot, some of whom I know quite well, to be able to celebrate with them when the time comes.

Madam Chair, my simple request would be that we not adjourn debate on this but rather that we allow for the debate to continue. I would suggest that it won't take too long. I believe there are votes that will take place here in the next 50 minutes or so, but to allow this discussion to take place to ensure that prior to a series of celebrations that affect many faiths across our country, whether that be Christmas or Hanukkah or others.... I think this is prescient and it is time-sensitive.

Not to dismiss or to suggest that there are not other important issues, but we see how the five points laid out here would be a small step that would allow this committee to make a strong statement, which then would allow the House to make an equally strong statement—and I would hope we have support for it accordingly—to all Canadians that their Parliament, of which government and the executive of government are a function, something that seems to be forgotten by the current individuals in charge.... However, I'll not get into the depths on that. However, I think that in allowing this debate to continue I would hope that it would collapse without too much delay and we can get this important issue moved in a sense that provides certainty, especially to some groups in our country that are facing significant challenges.

I'll end on this, Madam Chair. I would simply say that if we're able to get back to the debate—I know that I'm somewhere on the speaking list—I would like to have the opportunity to outline some of the stories I've heard, and that I know my colleagues have as well, about how we need to ensure that our people in this country—whether they have a faith or not and regardless of what that faith background is—are protected: that we protect them and that we live up to the high ideals that Canadians expect of us.

With that, Madam Chair, because it is not a dilatory motion, I would urge members of this committee to allow the debate on Mr. Moore's motion to continue. Hopefully, it will wrap up organically, and we can deal with it and then move on to the urgency of other issues before this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you for your comments.

Folks, I'm suspending for five minutes so that I can get some clarity on what's happening in the meeting. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

Before we start and I recognize Mr. Maloney on the motion of Mr. Garrison, I just want to put you all on notice to speak clearly, and if there are any issues in my understanding or a need for clarification, I will take my prerogative to suspend again if I need to.

Mr. Maloney, please.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Yes, it's better to get it right than wrong, Madam Chair.

I'm speaking to Mr. Garrison's motion. What I'm going to say is this: We, on this side, would like to vote on Mr. Moore's motion today, as soon as possible, and then we can move on to Bill C-40, which is the reason we're here today. We can not only accomplish what's on the agenda, but also address the issues that Mr. Moore has rightly raised in his motion.

Since I'm speaking to Mr. Garrison's motion, I suppose that would require defeating his motion, and then I hope we can move, without any further debate, to vote on Mr. Moore's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I thank Mr. Maloney for his intervention.

Madam Chair, we don't want to belabour the point around this motion. I know there were a few people who wished to speak to it, so without.... The only change I would make to that is just to allow those who are on the speakers list to make their point with the motion, and then to proceed to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Okay. We're still speaking on Mr. Garrison's motion.

Mr. Garrison, please.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is a bill—C-40—that people have waited many years for, and I personally have been working on it for many years. We're in a minority Parliament. Given the schedule of the committee and sittings, if we do not deal with this bill in committee, either at this sitting or the next, we risk putting this off well into the new year, and we risk losing the legislation, because we're in a minority Parliament.

That's my reason for wishing to proceed before the motion. It's not saying that there's anything unimportant about Mr. Moore's motion or that we should not deal with it. I'm not saying that at all, but I have a genuine worry, and if we defeat my motion and go to speakers, we will run out the time today. We will not get this today. We have other business of the committee already scheduled, such as the minister on estimates. We risk losing the opportunity to complete what is a very important bill.

That's my reason for the motion. I am just restating it. I believe that we can deal with it very quickly and be back on this motion very soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Monsieur Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd be inclined to agree with our colleague Mr. Garrison from the NDP. We're here to work on Bill C‑40, and that's what we should be doing. This is an important bill. I see no reason, partisan or otherwise, not to proceed with it. I think all citizens in Quebec as well as in Canada will be pleased that we are moving forward with Bill C-40.

I understand that we're here to talk about the adjournment proposed by Mr. Garrison, but this is somewhat along the same lines as our colleague Mr. Moore's motion. I think we have a problem here. No study has been done. The problem raised by Mr. Moore seems to me to be quite valid. It's a major, important problem that concerns me personally and all members of the Bloc Québécois.

That said, I find that we're not really equipped to deal with it now. Witnesses should have been called to testify on this subject, or we should plan to do so. We'd also have to go a little further before deciding on the exact wording of the motion. Therefore, Mr. Moore's motion seems a little premature to me, even if I agree with the substance.

It seems to me that we should do the work for which we were convened, as Mr. Garrison proposes. I intend to second his motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

I'm going to call the vote.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

No. I've called the vote. Nobody is on the speaking—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

It's a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

The vote has been called. Can we deal with that, and then do your point of order?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

We can't, really, because it's related to the vote we're about to take.

Madam Chair, we didn't get a.... I don't have an understanding, from what Mr. Kurek raised, about the nature of the motion. Obviously a motion to adjourn the meeting is not debatable. We move immediately to the vote.

Mr. Garrison's motion has some detail to it about next steps—after we adjourn one debate, how we should proceed. That's committee business, and we're free to speak to that.

I think that if there's a speakers list on Mr. Garrison's motion, then we should exhaust that list. I don't know if other people—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Okay.

As the chair, I have at least five people at this table with me.

I have legal opinion and other opinion, and I am calling the vote right now on this question. That's it.

Mr. Clerk, please proceed with the vote.

(Amendmend negatived: Yeas, 2; Nays, 9 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

It's defeated.

Now we're back to the main motion.

Mr. Caputo, you have the floor, please, unless you took yourself off. Honestly, I don't know. You've been taking yourself off and then putting yourself on.

Are you back on?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I don't believe I took myself off, but in any event, thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to speak in favour of the motion. It has five points, which I believe are compelling.

The first point is to “[d]esignate the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code and expel an estimated 700 Iranian agents operating in Canada”.

Point blank, why are these people still here? These are not people who love democracy. They're not people who love Canadian values. In fact, they abhor Canadian values. Here we are, essentially sitting on our hands. The House of Commons voted on this long before I arrived. I understand that sometimes the wheels of Parliament turn slowly, but this isn't a wheels-of-Parliament issue. This is a will-of-government issue. The Prime Minister could move and act tomorrow. He doesn't. This is a Prime Minister who, in my view, is loathe to act when he should. Let's not forget that, not long ago, he spoke on social media about a missile from Israel striking a hospital. I don't believe he ever apologized for that. Perhaps I'm wrong. Someone can raise a point of order if I am incorrect on that.

In fact, I don't know that I've ever seen the Prime Minister apologize for anything he's ever done himself. No, he's apologized for a lot of other people, but he's never apologized for things he's done. I suppose he had to apologize for his ethics breaches.

When it comes to something like this, you should be owning it. I don't see him doing that on a fairly regular basis—kind of like someone else to the south who doesn't like to apologize either. It's an interesting comparison, given questions we've had in the House of Commons of late.

I am also reassured by the fact that Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Sweden and the United States have designated the IRGC as a terrorist entity. I'm aware of the connections between the IRGC and Hamas. We all know what happened on October 7. That is unacceptable anywhere, at any time. I would think that all Canadians would say that the attack on innocent civilians, some of whom were children, some of whom were at a concert that was promoting peace.... The IRGC, we're told, had a role in that.

How can we possibly say that these people remain welcome in Canada? It is mind-blowing that officials from the IRGC remain here in Canada. Again, we have police stations that are reportedly being operated by foreign governments to intimidate Canadians. Again, nothing is being done. This isn't a matter of the wheels of Parliament turning slowly. This is a matter of political will being non-existent, despite the fact that we, as parliamentarians, expressed the will of Parliament, in a 2018 vote and in subsequent votes, for this to happen.

I'm utterly puzzled. I would love for somebody who has been here longer than me, preferably somebody from the government.... We have very capable people here who represent the government. I'm asking rhetorically, but, you know, somebody else can tell me. Maybe Mr. Maloney can. He's a wise guy. Perhaps he can tell me.

When I said that he's a wise guy, I didn't mean that in the.... Anyway, I'll just move on. He's a wise man.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I'll take it in a positive way.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Can somebody tell me what is going on? Am I in a parallel universe, where people who seek to disrupt our democracy remain here, and we're not calling them what they are, which is “terrorists”. Sometimes, you just need to say it, so on point one, I am in support.

On point two, “Establish a foreign influence registry”, this is just an absolute no-brainer. Again, we live in a democratic country with democratic values, and we should be spreading those democratic values, but as a democratic country, we should also be valuing the safety and security of our own citizens. A key way to do that is to establish a foreign influence registry.

Again, where's the political will here? Where is it? We talk a good game. We say, “Yes, this should happen,” and it just never does. I can't imagine that such legislation would be strongly opposed.

I'm struck by what happened to Kenny Chiu, a former member of Parliament from Richmond. It was obvious that there was electoral interference when he ran. We can't forget that, for someone in his position, he spent, potentially, years.... I think all of us here spent years getting to where we have to get to, and then, for there to be suspected foreign interference—not even suspected; I think it's been proven that there was at some level, or at least an attempt—and for us to not have a foreign influence registry in those circumstances is at best negligent, at worst reprehensible.

Number three is to “[e]valuate Canada's threat assessment in light of the U.K. travel advisory”. This, in my view, again, makes eminent sense. I believe we should be moving on this. It is one of our greatest allies and a partnership that, in my view, we should value. It's another democratic country, which has a global reputation beyond reproach. We should be looking at its travel advisory. Why is the U.K. putting out an advisory on Canada that we in Canada don't concur with? That is, in my view, something that must be addressed.

Number four is to “[r]emove red tape and speed up access to the security infrastructure program to protect communities at risk”. Again, you will not have issue from me on that.

Number five is to “[c]reate an anti-hate crime task force to coordinate the protection of faith communities”. I agree with MP Lantsman and what she said. I don't care whether you pray on Friday, Saturday, Sunday or not at all. You should be free to worship, or refrain from worship, however you see fit in this country. I will always stand up for that; Conservatives will always stand up for that.

I saw that there was an issue with somebody being alleged to have driven their vehicle at people who were protesting on behalf of Palestinians. I denounce that. I similarly denounce people who have targeted restaurants that are Jewish-owned. Those are all things that need to be denounced. In Canada, it shouldn't matter what ethnicity you are or what faith group you belong to. Those people should be free from intimidation, free from harassment and free to worship, or refrain from worship, as they see fit. That is why I am in support of the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. Van Popta, go ahead please.