Debates of Oct. 16th, 2018

Canada Labour Code

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his speech.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[Translation]

I am very proud to be here today.

As leaders at all levels of society, as leaders in all organizations, as leaders in our communities, we have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure a harassment- and violence-free workplace. Too many women and men suffer harassment and violence in the workplace, and no one should be exempt.

I am also extremely proud to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-65, which amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, to eradicate harassment and violence from federally regulated workplaces, including the federal public service and parliamentary workplaces.

Bill C-65 draws on existing Canada Labour Code provisions pertaining to violence and sexual harassment to design a comprehensive approach that covers all forms of violence and harassment, from bullying and teasing to sexual harassment and physical violence.

This bill also applies to all health and safety protections, including measures relating to harassment and violence in parliamentary workplaces, such as the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons, and to political staff working on Parliament Hill.

There are currently two separate regimes in place to deal with issues of violence and sexual harassment under the Canada Labour Code. They each have their own requirements and mechanisms for settling disputes, which creates an imbalance in how these matters are dealt with.

The current regimes do not apply to the same workplaces. Current sexual harassment rules only apply in the federally regulated private sector and most Crown corporations, whereas rules pertaining to violence also apply to the federal public service. Neither framework applies to parliamentary employees.

Bill C-65 would create a single, integrated regime to protect all federally regulated employees against harassment and violence in the workplace. As part of the Government of Canada's strategy to combat gender-based violence, the bill proposes a new framework that will prevent incidents of harassment and violence from occurring, respond effectively to these incidents when they do occur and support victims of harassment and violence while also protecting their privacy. Protecting victims' privacy is extremely important.

More specifically, Bill C-65 would amend the Canada Labour Code to expand the existing violence prevention requirements in part II of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with occupational health and safety; ensure that employers take preventive action and protect employees from harassment and violence at work; and repeal the existing sexual harassment provisions in part III of the code, which deals with labour standards, to create a single integrated regime to protect federally regulated employees under part II of the code.

Furthermore, the bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to require employers, through the regulatory framework and the corresponding regulations, to prevent harassment and violence. This includes ensuring that employees receive training, or even that they take the initiative themselves, and working with employees to develop a harassment and violence prevention policy.

The bill would also require employers to respond to incidents of harassment and violence, within a specified time frame; resolve the complaint and, if a resolution is not possible, designate a competent person to conduct investigations; inform the complainant and, in accordance with privacy measures, update the workplace committee on the investigation; implement the recommendations resulting from the investigation; and record and report all incidents of harassment and violence.

The bill would require employers to support employees who are victims of harassment and violence, as well as protect their privacy, which includes providing assistance and giving access to the workplace committees.

The bill will repeal the sections of the Canada Labour Code that permit exemptions to the establishment of a workplace committee, and will only allow exemptions when there is already a committee with the same health and safety responsibilities. It will broaden the scope of part II of the code to include staff of ministers' offices, who are also known as exempt staff.

The amendments to the Parliamentary Employment Staff Relations Act are extremely important. Bill C-65 would enact part III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, which incorporates by reference part II of the code. The act applies to parliamentary employers and employees, without limiting in any way the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and the House of Commons and their members.

More specifically, Bill C-65 would amend the act in order to incorporate by reference the provisions concerning workplace health and safety found in part II of the code with certain changes. First, the Deputy Minister of Labour will exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the minister when a member of the Senate or House of Commons is involved. Furthermore, the application of all directions and any appeals of these directions will be undertaken when they are tabled in the House of Commons or the Senate, or both. Appeals of these directions will be referred to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board.

The bill would amend the act to ensure the protection of parliamentary privileges by stating that all powers, privileges and immunities conferred or imposed may be exercised as long as they do not interfere, directly or indirectly, with the business of the House of Commons or the Senate.

Bill C-65 would require annual reporting and a five-year review, which is also appreciated. More specifically, the bill's proposed amendments will require: the Minister of Labour to prepare and publish an annual report that contains statistical data relating to harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, including parliamentary workplaces; that the harassment and violence provisions introduced in the Canada Labour Code and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act by Bill C-65 be reviewed five years after coming into force and every five years after that and that the responsible minister prepare and table reports on these reviews in every House of Parliament; and that the federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board submit an annual report on its activities under part III of the PESRA and part II of the code as it applies to parliamentary workplaces and that the responsible minister table the report in each of the House of Parliament.

There are 10 Senate amendments of which four will be accepted by the government, one is to be amended and five rejected.

The amendments that are to be accepted will strengthen the legislation to prevent workplace violence or harassment. They are: amendment 3, which will provide greater certainty to those who experience workplace violence and harassment by explicitly stating that nothing in this part shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the rights provided for under the Canadian Human Rights Act; amendment 5(b), which replaces the term “trivial, frivolous, or vexatious” with the term “abuse of process” so as to eliminate negative associations regarding coming forward with complaint; amendment 6 so that the annual report prepared by the minister regarding incidents of workplace harassment and violence includes information that is categorized according to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act; and amendment 7(a), which will provide greater certainty to those coming forward with complaints, including complaints outside of harassment and violence, that Bill C-65 would not limit one's ability to take a case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Amendment 4 is to be accepted with amendments. The suggestion from the Senate is to add two paragraphs to clause 3 of the bill. We are rejecting these two amendments and renaming them. The addition of these names aligns with the intent of Bill C-65 regarding the training of designated persons to whom complaints can be made.

The government respectfully disagrees with amendment 1. Replacing the word “means” with “includes” would result in a lack of clarity for both employers and employees.

The government respectfully disagrees with amendment 2. In focusing on harassment and violence, it would create an imbalance relative to all of the other occupational health and safety measures under part II of the Canada Labour Code.

We propose that the paragraph from amendment 4 be deleted because the addition of the proposed paragraph would mean that a single incident of harassment and violence in a workplace would be considered a violation of the Canada Labour Code on the part of the employer, which would undermine the framework for addressing harassment and violence that Bill C-65 seeks to establish.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for our colleague across the way. That was probably one of his most enthusiastic and well thought-out speeches, so I want to thank him for that.

We have talked a lot in the course of this debate. It has been very enriching and we are learning a lot from colleagues on both sides of the House. Does our hon. colleague feel with regard to how our Prime Minister explained away his groping incident that he should, at the very least, have instead issued a formal apology to the victim?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak to other people's experiences; I can only speak to my own. In the workplaces I have been involved in, whether in the military or the University of Manitoba, we have always tried to follow a very high code of conduct, especially at the University of Manitoba. In my time in the military there were times when we sometimes did see behaviour that was not in the best interests of the Canadian state or in accordance with the values of the Canadian people. It was unfortunate. That was early in my career. I remember joining in 1996 and seeing some of those behaviours occurring during basic training. At the University of Manitoba I know there are a lot of codes in place that attempt to get to the nature of this and try to be respectful of people in all ways.

The problem sometimes in the politically charged atmosphere of the House of Commons is precisely that. It is politically charged. The motivations of the people involved make it difficult to come to a resolution on this. That does not mean a resolution cannot happen, but it becomes very difficult, because it is not done in full respect to the people who are involved, the victims, and others who might have been involved in any incident.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we heard some concerns about privacy today and I wonder if the member could comment on how Bill C-65 addresses those issues of privacy, how it would protect the anonymity of complainants in small workplaces or here on Parliament Hill.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the issues surrounding committees, for instance, are very important. In a workplace that is too small, under 20 employees, these things obviously need to be handled with a great deal of delicacy to ensure that everyone's privacy is taken into consideration. There has to be good sense in ensuring that occurs. The bill would bring two disparate ways of doing things under one code to ensure that there is equitable treatment of everyone across the board.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree that leadership begins at the top and that no one should be above the law, regardless of their position, when serious allegations are levied against them.

Does my hon. colleague feel that victims of violence and harassment may experience such incidents differently from their perpetrators?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. We know that human memory is very different for different people. The way one person experiences something is very different from any other person. That is important when we look at harassment. As it is defined, for instance, in the military, it is not about the perpetrator but the victim. We have to understand what is occurring if there is perceived harassment or someone feels they have been wronged, or if someone has said something.

In the military I have seen violence and things done against people. Those things could be real and they could be perceived by that person, but it does not matter because they need to be treated with the utmost respect to ensure that the situation is rectified in the long term and does not occur again. At the end of day, we have to ensure that there is a safe workplace so that it accomplish its mission and mandate and is functional, with all employees working together.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1. We all know harassment is serious, and it is a pressing matter that faces Canadian society today. It is good that this Parliament is debating legislation that would seek to address harassment in this very workplace and workplaces across Canada.

Harassment is a very volatile offence, because it is not subject to whether the offender intends to harass or not. Irrespective of the intent, the mens rea of the harassment, the act still harms the victim. This is why we must put a special emphasis on protecting victims' rights when implementing legislation aimed at stopping harassment. That is a Conservative principle, and it is a principle the Liberal government promised it would uphold.

It is wonderful that we are enjoying a political system where every party seems to understand the gravity of harassment, but statements must lead to thoughtful action. Harassment is an evolving issue, and any legislation regarding harassment needs to recognize this. As parliamentarians, it is vital we understand that protecting people from harassment requires a continual effort, and that harassment comes in many forms. Unfortunately, no two cases are exactly the same and there are always new cases emerging every day.

In addressing harassment, all people who feel they have been harassed simply deserve the right to be heard. As an example, we have to bring into this conversation the fact that our Prime Minister was alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment. Even though he was accused, he claimed that he had a different perspective from that of the accuser. This gave him the explanation he needed to protect himself.

I believe it is possible and even plausible for two individuals to have two completely different perspectives on an occasion, but it does not mean one person's perspective is not real. Canadians, women and I myself were very disappointed in our Prime Minister for not being up front from the very beginning when this behaviour came to light.

The young reporter took immediate action in putting her experience on record with her colleague and in writing an article. In light of that fact, it was disappointing that our Prime Minister did not lead by example for others in his response. He truly should have apologized.

The Prime Minister is the head of our country. He is the leader who insists he is the ultimate feminist. When one makes a mistake, it is important to admit that mistake, to deal with it appropriately and to take every decisive action possible to apologize. We have to take note that how he has treated his own circumstances is very different from how he treated members in this House who were simply accused and immediately faced repercussions.

In this particular case, Ms. Knight chose not to pursue the matter any further, which is her right. However, due process should be afforded in every case out of respect for the accuser and the accused. We cannot rush to conclusions or opinions on matters that are so delicate. We cannot dismiss claims without a fair and honest investigation, nor can we be so quick to convict someone of a claim. We are living in an age where the court of public opinion is quick to convict and does not often provide fair or accurate assessments of harassment claims.

That is why I am grateful that this Parliament is looking to enact legislation on workplace harassment and violence. We should be a true example to the rest of Canada, to the people we represent, and certainly to our own families and children about what our priorities are and what we want them to be for all Canadians.

We need to ensure that there is a transparent process, which respects the privacy of the victim, to assess harassment allegations. All people, irrespective of gender, have a right not to be harassed at their place of work, period.

Madam Speaker, we know that even you, as Chair of this House, take very seriously the responsibility to ensure that the employees of the House of Commons do not have to face harassment. To everyone's chagrin, we still know that it is a reality here on Parliament Hill. Every parliamentarian in this House is an employer to staff, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure a harassment-free workplace. Each one of us, within our own offices, must do everything we can to make it a place where it is a pleasure to come to work and there is no sense of apprehension or fear.

As Canada's leaders, we must set the standard in ensuring that our employees have protection from harassment, and I believe that Bill C-65 is a step in the right direction. However, in formulating this bill, I think the government dropped the ball in adequately consulting stakeholders on the matter. The National Association of Women and the Law and the Native Women's Association of Canada both said that they were not consulted during the drafting of the bill. Both organizations represent important demographics in Canada, and I believe that they could have contributed greatly in making this bill even better.

I would implore the government to remember to consult with key stakeholders, as there is safety in a multitude of counsellors, and Bill C-65 is all about making sure that workers are safe. When we say that we are going to consult, we need to be willing to consult people who agree with our perspective and with those who do not agree with our perspective but have things to offer that we have not thought about. In that case, I think that may be what happened here.

I will be supporting this bill, as combatting harassment is a pressing need in Parliament. It would set us on the path to safer workspaces in Canada. Sexual misconduct and sexual harassment have no place in Canadian society, especially within our political system, or actually anywhere.

Quite honestly, I feel that there is a lot more we need to do as a government to deal with sexual harassment beyond creating a legislative environment for rules and regulations within this place. We should be setting an example in a lot of the policies that are coming forward from various committees, such as the status of women committee, where we put the value of women far higher than I believe it is being placed today.

The bipartisan teamwork on the HUMA committee between the Conservatives and the Liberals proved that Bill C-65, if passed, would have a meaningful impact.

The Conservatives successfully introduced an amendment to prevent political interference in political offices during harassment investigations. Considering the sensitive nature of harassment claims, it is important that harassment investigations are not undermined by the perception of political interference or by actual interference. This was done by amending the law to have powers transferred from the Minister of Labour to the deputy minister, a non-partisan civil servant, in investigations involving the offices of members of Parliament. This would preserve the integrity of the investigation process. I am proud of that amendment that came forward from us.

The amendment to ensure strict timelines for investigations into incidents of harassment to ensure that investigations are carried out in a timely manner would also add to the integrity of the process.

The introduction of mandatory sexual harassment training is an essential part of this bill.

The preservation of the integrity of the process and the prevention of vexatious complaints would be ensured by requiring that such complaints were made within a prescribed time. I feel that this is a good move, and I am so pleased to see it in here, because we have to bring a balance to how we deal with these issues. We cannot afford to have public opinion determining what is right and wrong. It has to be the rule of law that ultimately succeeds, or we will find ourselves in chaos.

Bill C-65 would ensure that a mandatory review of the bill would occur every five years.

Bill C-65 would implement a fair and impartial process to ensure that the appropriate consequences would be applied to the offender.

I invite all members of this House to join me in support of Bill C-65 so that better protections from harassment for all Canadians are in place.

[John Oliver, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made some thoughtful comments and I thank her for her clear support of the bill.

We all agree in the House that harassment and sexual violence of any kind are completely unacceptable, full stop. We all need to do what we can to make sure that harassment and sexual violence do not happen.

As I said earlier, there are very important components in this to encourage people to report harassment and to report sexual violence. One is to make sure our employees have received proper training to understand what it is, how to stop it and to identify practices that are unacceptable. It is important that the employer follow up in a timely way on any complaints that come in, and where there has been sexual violence or sexual harassment or violence of any kind that there is appropriate support.

For me, it begins with leadership. I can say quite categorically that, because it was mandatory, all the political staff and our staff in offices here on the Liberal side have received training online. Some have received it in person, as well.

I am curious. Has the member taken her staff and her office through this kind of training? Can she say collectively whether the Conservative MPs have taken their office staff through that training?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that all of the Liberals have fulfilled their responsibilities on that side of the House. One thing about Conservatives that I will mention is that when there are laws in place, or expectations, we follow through. That is just what we do. When it comes to this particular issue, of course my answer is yes.

However, I go beyond that. I am doing my very best to make sure that all of my employees in my office always know, no matter what their issue is or what they are feeling in regard to me or what I am expecting of them or what they think should happen in comparison to what I am suggesting they do, they always have that freedom in my office, that my door is always open and we are there to communicate.

If the member would like to know for sure, I am sure there is a record somewhere as far as what every person in this House has done to comply with the requirements.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Conservative caucus, from what I understand in terms of the member's answer, has participated in ensuring that all of her caucus colleagues have taken that course. It was something that was highly recommended. I know that all the members of the Liberal government and caucus have gone through the course, from what I understand. It is a good thing.

Having said that, I wonder if my colleague and friend across the way can comment on how important it is that whether someone is a member of Parliament, a leader in a community or a business person that they become better educated as a whole on the importance of harassment in whatever form it might take. One of the nice things about this legislation indirectly is that it can be used as a great educational tool.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree. Those in positions of power and leadership have a huge responsibility here, which brings to my mind this question: Did our Prime Minister get the training? I am sorry, but he is a leader, and we know of a circumstance in which he was involved and, quite honestly, Canadians are disappointed in his response in that situation. We always have an opportunity to apologize if there was a circumstance where another individual felt that behaviour was not appropriate for him or her.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, our hon. colleague brought this up in her speech. She talked about mens rea, the guilty mind. Did the person who was committing the crime intend to commit that crime?

When the Prime Minister angrily walked across the way and grabbed our colleague by the arm and then subsequently elbowed one of the NDP members, the question was whether he intended to do that. Was it mens rea? Did he have a guilty mind?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I have to allow the member to answer because we are running out of time. I will let the member for Yorkton—Melville give a very quick answer.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Quite honestly, Madam Speaker, that day was very confusing to me from the beginning to the end when I think of the behaviour of the Prime Minister of my country. I cannot fathom what was in his mind, that he thought he had the right or authority to go across the floor and do what he did that day.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Vancouver East is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly the notice is deemed withdrawn.

Foreign Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, tonight we are here to discuss the government's foreign policy with respect to the Middle East and to follow up on a question I asked, which touched on both Canada's relationship with and support for Israel, as well as our interactions with Iran.

Israel is the one nation in the Middle East that most clearly aligns with our values and strategic interests. It is a fellow democracy. At a level of verbal attestation, there would be agreement from the official opposition and the government around the language of supporting Israel, but very clearly there would be some differences with respect to the particulars.

We believe that support for Israel and the Middle East's democracy, a free democracy with diversity, tolerance and citizenship for people who are not part of the majority groups, requires us to vote against one-sided UN resolutions that signal out Israel. It calls for us to recognize Israel's right to exist, to recognize Israel's capital and to do all we can to resist and stand against genocidal powers in the region that are opposing Israel.

When we asked questions of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the government's decision to abstain from a UN resolution that singled out Israel, to abstain as opposed to voting against it, we got an angry response from the member. He told us that apparently we had been told not to ask such questions. That demonstrates a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of what question period and parliamentary democracy are supposed to be about. I replied to that in my response in question period at that time.

However, I went on to speak about issues involving Iran and highlighted a real failure of the government to align its actions with its vote in the House. An opposition day motion called for the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. That was supported by every present member of the government. I will note that there were some absences from the chamber when it came to vote on listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity, but those who were present on the government side voted in favour of the motion.

The motion that called for that immediate listing has, nonetheless, not led to any action. We are here almost four months later and the government has not done what it said it would do, which was to immediately list the IRGC. I wrote to the public safety minister about this matter and noted in my letter that perhaps he and I had a different definition of the word “immediate”.

As we look at Canada's foreign policy in the region, I will make a few key comments. Although we hear a lot in the media, and it is important that we do, about terrorist organizations like Daesh, the larger long-term strategic security threat comes from the Iranian state and its allies. It is fair to say that their operations are very sophisticated, very much contrary to our interests and values, and they require a strong response, including the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

We need to oppose this Iranian aggression. Therefore, I am calling on the government again to do what it voted to do, to follow through on its commitment finally and list the IRGC as a terrorist entity. Will it do it, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the government is committed to ensuring that Canada takes all appropriate actions to counter terrorist threats to this country, its people, our way of life, and our interests around the world while co-operating with international partners as appropriate. Listing an entity under the Criminal Code is one of the many tools Canada uses to combat terrorist financing, operations and support to terrorist activities.

Regarding the listing of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or the IRGC, I would point out that there are restrictive measures already imposed against entities and individuals within the IRGC, and against Iran, that have a similar effect to a listing. These include the listing of the IRGC's Qods Force under the Criminal Code. The Qods Force is a branch of the IRGC responsible for extraterritorial operations, and for exporting the Iranian revolution through activities such as facilitating terrorist operations. It provides arms, funding and paramilitary training to other listed groups, including the Taliban, the Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas.

Other existing measures against the IRGC include the sanctions imposed under the Special Economic Measures Act. These actions were partly coordinated with like-minded countries to explicitly target IRGC organizations and the leadership by prohibiting any dealings between Canadians and these entities. Furthermore, Canada has listed Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act.

When we talk about listing the entire IRGC under the Criminal Code, I can assure the member that officials have begun their assessment. As the terrorist listing chapter of the National Security Green Paper, 2016, outlined, the process for listing an entity under the Criminal Code is thorough, fair and robust to ensure that national security threats are addressed while protecting the democratic values, rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

To be listed under the Criminal Code, an individual or group must meet the legal threshold of reasonable grounds to believe they have knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity, or are knowingly acting on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with an entity that has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity.

This is determined by drafting a criminal or security intelligence report, which documents the entity's activities. The report is reviewed by independent counsel at the Department of Justice to ensure that the entity meets the legal threshold for listing. If the Minister of Public Safety agrees that this test is met, he may recommend to cabinet that the entity be listed. This is the process we are undertaking for the IRGC and, understandably, it takes necessary time in order to be completed.

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

Madam Speaker, this really should not be so difficult. As a matter of policy, the Iranians state that the IRGC is very much involved. I think it is well known and established in precisely the activities the member talked about. Moreover, the Prime Minister, cabinet and government voted in favour of a motion to immediately list the IRGC as a terrorist entity. That was a commitment, that was an affirmation, that was a vote they made in the House, and they have not done it. The member talks in a way that makes us wonder if they ever intend to do it. Even in the midst of describing the elongated process, he does acknowledge that it is ultimately the decision of the minister and the cabinet.

They made that decision, they made that vote and now it is time for them to do the right thing and follow through. Will they list the IRGC, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, listing an individual or group as a terrorist entity is a public means of identifying their involvement with terrorism and curtailing support for them. Listing is just one component of the international and domestic response to terrorism.

With that in mind, I would reiterate that Canada has already taken action against Iran and the IRGC specifically. These actions are broadly consistent with our international partners, such as the U.S., U.K. and Australia, which have designated components of the IRGC under their own sanctions regimes. Canada is also in line with the U.S. in its listing of the IRGC's Qods Force under the Criminal Code. I would also restate that officials are assessing the listing of the IRGC using the necessary due diligence as part of the established process.

This government remains unwavering in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, including by taking all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.)