Justice Committee on Dec. 5th, 2023

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

The challenge, however, is not with the standing order. It's not that I agree with the standing order, although I do, but your previous intervention suggested a different interpretation of that. I just want to ensure there is absolute clarity around the rights and privileges of members of Parliament to be able to speak, especially when it comes to important issues like the one we are debating now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Yes, absolutely.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To confirm, I am subbed in, so that clarifies the specifics associated with this.

We have before us a common-sense motion. Over the last number of weeks, in the aftermath of the horrific invasion that took place by Hamas into Israel on October 7, we have been thrust into a situation in which our friends in Israel and in the Jewish community around the world have faced attacks in an unprecedented way.

What we have before us is a simple opportunity to not just stand for the people of Israel and the Jewish community in our country, but to truly stand on the side of freedom, to stand up for the rights and freedoms that we all take so seriously. At least I would hope that we all take them very, very seriously.

To recap, the motion here would do five simple things:

One, it would designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code and expel an estimated 700—let me emphasize that, 700—Iranian agents operating in Canada; two, it would establish a foreign influence registry; three, it would evaluate Canada's threat assessment in light of the U.K. travel advisory; four, it would remove red tape and speed up access to the security infrastructure program to protect communities at risk; and five, it would create an anti-hate crime task force to coordinate the protection of faith communities.

Madam Chair, the reason it's important to dive into the substance of this motion is that it speaks to one of the fundamental values that defines us as Canadians. That is the very idea of freedom. That freedom includes freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

I have a number of examples. I've spoken to people of faith within the communities I represent, where they have felt persecuted. This is across the spectrum, with those in the Jewish community, in the Muslim community and in the Christian community, and with those without a faith. They have felt a level of an erosion of the faith that we have traditionally had in the freedoms we enjoy in this country. It's a fear that the Canadian experience and the freedoms associated with that are eroding.

This motion is a simple, straightforward and practical way that we can emphasize how important we deem the preservation of these freedoms in light of what has happened in Israel and what has been the experience of far too many across our country who have faced persecution and, in some cases, hatred for their belief system.

Madam Chair, I've spoken with a number of constituents related to church burnings. There have been a number of churches burned down in the communities I represent. There is fear as they endeavour to rebuild after a devastating act that destroyed what was seen as a safe place in the community and in those parishioners' lives. It speaks to how important it is, and how unequivocally we need to act.

I said that I would be brief, although there is much that I would love to talk about related to this. To wrap up my comments, I will simply say this.

We have seen a growing disconnect between Parliament and the executive in our country. In the 42nd Parliament, more than four years ago, Parliament voted, unanimously is my understanding—I was not a member then—to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity. We've seen support for a foreign influence registry. We've seen wide support for the other three items that were brought forward.

The disconnect that exists between the parliamentary system and the executive of our government in Canada is very concerning. I would hope all members take it seriously, because that disconnect further contributes to an erosion of trust that can take place. It strikes at the heart of what our democracy is and the essential provisions that are required to preserve what I shared in relation to the freedoms we enjoy as Canadians.

Madam Chair, to conclude, this motion is simple and straightforward. It's common sense, so we can ensure that we bring home a level of security and safety and preserve freedom in the great country we call Canada. It's to protect those who need protection at a time when many see an erosion of trust. It can be done. Let's buck that trend. Let's get this done. Let's support it before this committee. Let's ensure that we have the opportunity before the House of Commons to ask that same question.

I would hope that every MP would stand in favour of common sense.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. Genuis.

Next it will be Mr. Fortin's turn.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will take cues from my colleagues if and when they want me to pursue a particular course, but I'll make some remarks in the meantime and wait for some clear direction from them.

Chair, I was the member of the House who moved the original motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization five years ago, or slightly more than that, I believe. I am very pleased to see this motion come before the committee. It has been far too long that the government has failed to act.

That's why I have put forward Bill C-350, which would list the IRGC as a terrorist organization as well as taking other measures to hold the Iranian regime accountable.

I hope this motion passes. I hope to see strong action taken against the Iranian regime.

I'll leave my comments there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I've said before, I may be alone on this. I, too, am very concerned about the situation we're seeing around the world, particularly the acts of antisemitism committed in recent weeks. In fact, such acts have been going on for a long time. I personally find them abhorrent. The same goes for acts against Muslims or any other religion. Religions should encourage us to unite and work together in harmony. I don't want to use clichés, but I would say that they should encourage us to love one another rather than seek to harm, hurt or kill one another. It all seems abhorrent to me, and I agree that we should do everything in our power to fight against such acts.

That said, I think we need to proceed rationally. As I said earlier, I'm sympathetic to the arguments raised by Mr. Moore, but I think they're a bit hasty. There are a lot of things in there that aren't even within the purview of our committee. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the list of terrorist entities is the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety. There's also the financing of infrastructure projects. There are various items that don't fall under the purview of our committee.

On the other hand, we have not received any witnesses on this subject. But even if we are sensitive to these issues, we must be rigorous in our work, in my opinion. Before adopting a motion that makes or supports allegations, we would have to call witnesses. If we didn't do this, all our studies would be useless. All we'd have to do is ask ourselves if we're sensitive to a situation and then produce a report.

For my part, I think it's too quick and that witnesses should be called. What's more, I'm not sure that all this falls within the remit of our committee. I'm aware that, for all sorts of reasons that I don't understand or that perhaps don't concern me, the Liberals and Conservatives will support this motion. It will therefore be adopted. I'd like to say that I'm very sensitive to these arguments, but that it's hasty, in my opinion, and that we'd be better off hearing from witnesses over the course of one or two sessions before making a decision.

We're here to look at Bill C‑40. Now, this isn't a motion we can easily make a decision on in two minutes. There's substance here. We're talking about 700 Iranian agents. Who are these agents? There are many questions we need to consider seriously. In my opinion, it's not serious to make a decision after simply hearing our respective states of mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Mr. Moore, were you on the list?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

We've exhausted our speakers list, and we're moving to a vote on the motion.

I appreciate everyone's contribution to the motion, though.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

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

Thank you very much.

I wish to acknowledge that, as a gesture of goodwill, we would hate to not have all members who are in good standing before the committee, so, Chair, with the requirement of a few seconds to do that, I will cede my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In light of the time, and I know we have votes coming up, personally, I will want to vote in person, because I think we have five votes tonight.

I would move a motion to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

I suppose it's up to the committee to decide. It's only 5:19 p.m.

We're going to vote on whether you would like to adjourn, or whether you want to proceed with Bill C-40, I guess. We have 10 minutes left.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I need time to get up there, so if we stop at 5:30 p.m., that would be fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Do you want the vote, or do you want to withdraw the motion?

(Motion withdrawn)

We will proceed.

Clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

We have no amendments on clause 2.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You still have to debate the clause.

I'd like to speak on clause 2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wonder if I could just ask our officials to explain a bit what the effect of clause 2 would be.

[Julie Besner, Senior Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice]

This application is being considered by the minister. Currently, the superior courts of criminal jurisdiction have been hearing those applications for release, pending the review. Bill C-40 proposes that it should be the court of appeal that does this.

The test would be the same. Currently, it's the same test when someone is appealing a conviction that the superior courts have been applying, so that part isn't changing. It's just the forum, if you will.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry. Does it change the form, or does it change the level of the court that considers the—

[Julie Besner]

That's what I meant by forum, the court.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The forum...? I'm sorry. I heard “form”.

Okay. It changes the forum. What are the resourcing implications of that if all the applications are directed to this particular court, this particular forum?

Can you comment on the readiness from a resource perspective for that particular court to hear these complaints as they come in, and whether that would lead to delays or changes in timelines for those making these applications?

[Julie Besner]

Well, the applications would be before the court of appeal of whichever province in which the trial was held. It's not as though one court would be seized with the volume of applications.

One thing that was raised during the consultations is that sometimes the delay, the notice that the Crown receives before a hearing is held, can be quite challenging if the particular case is very, very old—decades old, for example. They have a hard time accessing the file and preparing for a bail hearing before the court of appeal.

That is about the only major concern we heard about bail pending a miscarriage of justice review in the court of appeal. They determine their own rules about how much notice would be provided. They can be approached as well for granting an extension of the time—an adjournment, if you will—before an actual hearing is held.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

A request can be made for an extension of time, but it clearly means that the individual involved is waiting much longer. It's some comfort, but not as much as they would like, if they're able to make that application but they're still waiting.