House of Commons Hansard #35 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting point that was raised about Elections Canada.

I believe that Elections Canada has strong rules around the use of the voters list, but, of course, political parties collect personal information using so many other means. It is the regulation of that other information that is particularly germane and could be covered under this piece of legislation, which is something that we have been pushing for.

Could the member comment on the omission of any treatment of that kind of information?

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe these are the types of questions that ought to be brought up at committee, and I do think that it is a valid concern. Again, back to Elections Canada, when we look at the governance of political parties, at third party advertising and all the different measures that our government in the last Parliament and previously has put forward, I do think that Elections Canada is best equipped to address the issues of privacy, which are absolutely valid. I appreciate the question, but I do think it should be within that purview.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

November 24th, 2020 / 1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the digital charter implementation act, 2020. I want to talk specifically about the balanced approach to the compliance and enforcement set out in the consumer privacy protection act, also known as the CPPA.

Canadians have told us they want to see strong consequences for those who mishandle their personal information. Financial consequences can be an important tool in protecting Canadians’ privacy, but so is helping organizations comply with the law at the outset.

I am pleased to say that the CPPA takes a very balanced approach to compliance and enforcement. It would help companies get privacy right from the ground up, and takes a phased approach to enforcement to correct problems as soon as they are discovered. The CPPA would incentivize organizations to get their practices right from the start, and the Privacy Commissioner would have a prominent role in supporting these organizations.

Under the CPPA, businesses would be able to approach the Privacy Commissioner for a no-risk review of their privacy management program and help them comply with the law. The commissioner could also ask to review their business programs, without using what he finds in an enforcement action. This is a very important step in early correction of problems. Under the current privacy regime, companies subject to the law are already required to establish a privacy management program, which would be maintained in the CPPA.

Privacy management programs can cover a wide range of issues, such as how companies handle service providers or third parties that support their businesses, how they respond to security breaches, privacy risks assessments, mitigation measures undertaken, and so on.

However, what is new is enabling the Privacy Commissioner to have a look at these policies and practices outside of an investigation. This would provide a safe space in which the commissioner could provide advice and companies could quickly take action. At the same time, the commissioner would benefit from examples of the challenges organizations are facing and their needs in the privacy space.

We know Canadian companies, especially smaller ones and those starting out, will be very interested in these changes.

The CPPA would also recognize not all organizations are the same. Some deal with minimal amounts of personal information, and for others it is central to their business model. Therefore, the CPPA would allow organizations to develop their programs according to the volume and sensitivity of the personal information they handle, as well as a company’s revenues.

The Privacy Commissioner has had a long-standing role in undertaking research and publishing guidance. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has also long had the ability to ask the commissioner to conduct research on privacy issues. This ability would remain in the CPPA. However, the minister would now be able to ask the commissioner to conduct research into the implementation or operation of the act. This would help the government know how well the law is functioning.

The Privacy Commissioner has prepared a lot of guidance materials over the years. We support this vital role. We want to reinforce a long-standing practice of the Privacy Commissioner to consult with stakeholders in guidance development. This practice would now exist in law so that guidance can be informed by what is happening on the ground.

The Privacy Commissioner would also consult with government institutions where relevant. There may be times when government policy may be implicated, such as with trade policies or public health.

These past months have shown us how vital it is for federal organizations to have a unified response on our most pressing challenges. By legislating, we are providing certainty to Canadians that guidance has been discussed with those on the ground.

I have stated how the bill would ensure organizations build privacy considerations from the start. Working with organizations and giving guidance individually is a fundamental role of the Privacy Commissioner. We want to avoid any problems, but there will be organizations that do not get things right.

The law provides individuals with the right to challenge an organization’s compliance with the law, and it allows them to file complaints with the Privacy Commissioner. This is an important exercise of their privacy rights, and the Privacy Commissioner retains his ability to initiate a complaint investigation where there are reasonable grounds to do so. The CPPA would also encourage the resolution of problems as early in the process as possible, and the bill would provide for dispute resolution.

Compliance agreements, a new tool introduced under PIPEDA, would remain in the CPPA. Companies are encouraged to come to the table to work out an agreement with the commissioner, without resorting to more formal measures such as orders. If no resolution is possible under PIPEDA, the commissioner would make recommendations at the end of an investigation and the matter may go to court. The court would then start again, with a new proceeding, and maybe it would issue an order. Few cases have gone that route, however.

Under the CPPA, the commissioner would be able to issue orders as well. To ensure fairness, a new process, called an inquiry, internal to the Privacy Commissioner’s office, would be introduced prior to issuing orders. Once the inquiry is over, the commissioner would issue his findings and decisions and may make orders to an organization to change its practices to bring it into compliance.

The Privacy Commissioner may also recommend administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, to a new tribunal for certain contraventions of the CPPA. The personal information and data protection tribunal would hear any appeals of the commissioner’s decision and, if required, would decide whether to issue an AMP and, if so, the amount.

In our consultations, many industry stakeholders expressed concern over AMPs, which have the potential to significantly affect an organization’s bottom line and even put smaller companies out of business altogether. By introducing an inquiry phase before issuing orders, and by separating the imposition of AMPs from the commissioner’s other responsibilities, the CPPA would support additional due diligence in decisions to impose AMPs.

We anticipate that some organizations will challenge the commissioner’s orders and recommendations. We do not wish to burden the courts. This is another reason for introducing a new tribunal. It is intended to be less formal than the court and ease access to justice for organizations and individuals. After the tribunal issues a decision, if an organization or individual wants to, they could proceed to federal court and request judicial review.

As my colleagues can see, overall this is a very balanced and phased approach. The CPPA would place strong emphasis on proactive compliance activities, such as reviews of the privacy management programs, guidance development and consultation. When there are possible contraventions, the goal is resolution. If that cannot be achieved, matters would become more formal. This graduated approach to enforcement is built on the foundations of fairness, transparency and meaningful opportunities on all sides to achieve compliance, which is what we know Canadians want.

Many have said that Canada’s private sector privacy law needs more teeth. The digital charter implementation act, 2020, would give it that, and it would do it in a way that organizations that want to do the right thing have the incentive to do so from the start.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about how this important bill works to address Canadians' concerns in a measured way.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:35 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to my friend about the enforcement mechanisms. What are the major aspects of them that would allow individual consumers to get results through a complaint process?

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the member for sharing his time with me and for his great intervention earlier.

I noticed the member talked extensively about enforcement. He highlighted that the legislation would provide administrative monetary penalties of up to 3% of global revenue or $10 million for non-compliant organizations. Also, it contains an expanded range of offences for certain serious contraventions of the law, subject to the maximum of 5% of global revenue or $25 million.

These are some of the enforcement mechanisms that will be accessible once the process has been completed.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, does the member believe there has been adequate consultation regarding this legislation, particularly with the provinces that have their own privacy acts covered under PIPEDA?

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe that yes, there has been sufficient consultation. The genesis of the bill goes back to 2000, and through the progress of time, there have been a number of consultations, in 2017 and 2019.

As the member is quite aware, a number of provinces have legislation equivalent to PIPEDA or the CPPA. The most important thing is that all levels of government are working together to ensure that the privacy of individuals' personal information is protected.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the same question I previously asked another hon. member. It is about data security.

The bill targets private companies. With the CERB, we recently saw that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people were victims of fraud. When they receive their notice of assessment in April or May, they will learn that they owe money because they did not qualify for the CERB and collected it illegally.

If the government is working on cleaning up privacy laws in the private sector, why not put its own data protection system in order?

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question for many Canadians, as news continuously provides updates on non-compliance. There are a number of individuals who are non-compliant.

I believe the initial rollout of the program was related to data that needed privacy protection from various government levels. This is a great opportunity for us to explore other dimensions of government bodies that are dealing with the privacy of information and how they will manage it. I am looking forward to hearing testimony about this at committee.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-11.

We are surrounded by data that seems to be out of control, lost by corporations, sometimes stolen from governments. Data that we voluntarily give up about ourselves is being collected billions of bytes at a colossal rate. It has a tremendous impact on our privacy and what is being calculated or inferred about us in our daily lives, such if we have a good credit rating, or if we can buy a car or when we go for drinks with a colleague. All of this is very much apparent today, particularly during this health crisis when people are definitely at home and using the Internet to a greater extent.

Everything we do today has some impact on data. Whether we take an Uber or order a meal, that data is collected. Quite frankly, we need to ensure people's privacy is protected.

Why does privacy matter? It is a question that has arisen in the context of this global debate, made worse by this pandemic, where millions around the world have come to rely on computers to carry out a function for their very lives. When we hear arguments about Internet privacy. A lot of what we hear about this mass surveillance is that there is no real harm due to this large-scale invasion, that people have nothing to hide. Those engaging in bad acts have a reason to want to hide and care about their privacy.

This is presupposed on the assumption that there are good and bad people in the world. Bad people who plot to take down governments and plan public attacks are the people who have reason to care about their privacy. By contrast, there are good people, people who go to work, pay taxes, care for their children and use the Internet, not to plot civil destruction but to read the news and find recipes. These people are doing nothing wrong and have no reason to hide.

In a 2009 interview of the long-time CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, when asked about the different ways his company was causing the invasion of privacy for hundreds of millions of people around the world, he said, “If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.” There are many issues with this statement, one being that this is the very Eric Schmidt who blocked his employees at Google from speaking with the online Internet magazine CNET after it published an article full of personal private information, which was obtained exclusively through Google search and Google products.

A few short decades of the Internet, once held as an unparalleled tool of democracy liberalization, have been converted into an unparalleled zone of mass indiscriminate collection. Enter 2018, when the EU has set the global standard for privacy regulation with the flagship general data protection regulations, known as GDPR, signalling to Canada that our 1990s era of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act did not have the teeth to take on big tech.

Bill C-11 would bring in additional privacy regulations. Replacing PIPEDA with CCPA would provide an opportunity for greater detail within the law rather than just relying on the interpretations of the Privacy Commissioner. This is a good thing.

The structure will include a personal information and data protection tribunal that will play a key enforcement role by reviewing all commissioner decisions and issue penalties for non-compliance. There will be an expert tribunal composed of three to six members, but interestingly enough it says there may be only one expert, which may be a deficiency in the act.

What are these new privacy rights? One is data mobility. Subject to regulations, on the request of an individual, an organization must, as soon as feasible, disclose the personal information that is collected from an individual and to an organization designated by the individual. Data mobility is a fact of life and this is a good thing. What format that data will be transferred in will need to be discussed.

On algorithmic transparency, if the organization has used an automated decision process to make a prediction or recommendation, then the organization must, on the request of an individual, provide an explanation of the prediction, recommendation or decision and the personal information that was used to make the prediction. It seems like a reasonable intent and is something it should be able to do without giving up the code.

With respect to de-identification, the bill states:

An organization that de-identifies personal information must ensure that any technical and administrative measures applied to the information are proportionate to the purpose for which the information is de-identified...

Then there is the new enforcement. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada will have the order-making power that will enable the office to order compliance with the law and recommend significant penalties.

I should mention I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

In some cases, the recommended penalties are the highest in the G7, so they are significant. The expanded range of offences for contraventions of the law are a maximum fine of 5% for a global revenue of $25 million. There are administrative penalties as well.

One of the issues I see with this is that the legislation and penalties invoke fear, but there will be a question of whether there is adequate teeth for enforcement.

The law includes whistleblowing provisions that protect those who have disclosed alleged privacy non-compliance and a private right of action that will allow individuals to seek damages for loss or injury suffered through privacy violations.

There are new standards of consent. This has been a big issue for individuals. How many people have signed up to a site, with three pages of disclosure to which they are supposed to consent? I would argue that very few people will actually read that kind of detail. Therefore, there is an attempt within the legislation to use clear language and simplified consent. Given the depth of the legislation, that may be a difficult thing to achieve, but is a worthwhile goal.

Deceptive practices to obtain consent with false or misleading information renders the consent invalid and individuals can withdraw their consent at any time. There is the question of whether people are providing consent for multiple activities or just an individual activity. That should be clarified.

The realm of data is largely uncharted territory and we find ourselves asking the question of who owns our data. Our opinion is that people own their data and they should own their data.

The word “consent” is mentioned 108 times in the GDPR. In the first reading of Bill C-11, it was mentioned 118 times. This sounds great. Who could possibly be against the consent of data? Challenging consent seems counterintuitive in the world of privacy because it is so linked to us and our autonomy. However, it is both impractical and undesirable and serves to explain why our privacy law is in such a sorry state. It is imperative the legislation is written with as little room for interpretation as possible.

There are some standards within that bill. It states:

An organization may collect or use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for a business activity described in subsection (2)...

Under that subsection, it states:

(a) a reasonable person would expect such a collection or use for that activity; and

(b) the personal information is not collected or used for the purpose of influencing the individual’s behaviour or decisions.

The issue is this. If that is subject to interpretation, we could have a pretty broad interpretation of what it says. Hopefully this act, with the regulations that follow, will clearly define what is in and what is out.

At the end of the day, if we are using services, many services are disrupting, shaping and helping our lives in ways we could not have possibly imagined mere decades ago. Whether we like it or not, it is big tech that has provided these realities for us and the government should, as with any other key stakeholder, create meaningful, effective and collaborative policy but require consultation. It is one thing to consult in front, but now that we have legislation, we need to ensure we get it right. We need to ensure that industry, particularly small businesses, remain competitive. The bill is being sent for review to the privacy and ethics committee. There is a strong argument that industry committee should have a look at this bill as well.

Therefore, proper consultation must happen. There is nothing wrong with doing that. I hope the government will ensure the bill is properly consulted on.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:50 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of enforcement. Could the member talk to us about the elements of the bill that are critically focused on enforcement and what, if any, changes could we look at to strengthen it? It is a very strong starting point, one that will make complaints accessible to the average consumer. I would like my friend's comments on that.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, what is in the act, with the increased fines, certainly provides somewhat of a deterrent. People are going to look at those fines. Then it becomes the reality of how do we ensure we enforce those fines. This is a new system with this tribunal. It looks like there is the potential for it to have more lay persons on it than actual experts in the field, which concerns me. I am concerned that this is the fear of enforcement to try and derive the result needed. There have to be adequate provisions within this act to ensure bad players are held accountable.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, the regulation-making power we give the government through legislation, in some sense, requires us to trust the government to put those regulations in place in a way that respects the public interest. The challenge we have when it comes to privacy is the that government does not have a great track record with respect to its own actions and its respect for privacy. This raises some concerns about whether we trust the government to enact these regulations in an effective way and properly enforce them.

Does the member have further comments on that?

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have the same concerns. The track record is not there with the government as it relates to privacy. We have seen this in a variety of different areas where it has not taken this sort of thing serious. That is all the more reason the bill needs significant review to ensure we get it right.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, on that particular point, I would remind the member opposite that the legislation before us today went through a lengthy process of having all forms of consultations with many different stakeholders, industry leaders and even our standing committee, which has also incorporated many thoughts within the legislation.

I have heard that in the last two years information on the Internet has almost doubled. We can only imagine what it will be two or three years from now. This type of legislation is badly needed and it is a good starting point at the very least. Would the member not agree?

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, it is valuable, but it really raises the question about why the Liberals would prorogue Parliament. Why would we not get on with these things? This is the kind of legislation that has been delayed. The government has been studying it. It is one thing to take consultation before developing legislation, but it one's interpretation of what was heard from the consultation. Until we actually hear from people on what they think, now that they see this legislation in writing, we cannot necessarily determine if it will get to the goals to which we aspire.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, another concern I hear from Canadians is about threats to their privacy from foreign actors, perhaps foreign state actors, and the need for the government to respond to that threat.

Does the member have a comment on how the legislation would impact concerns about foreign threats to our privacy?

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020Government Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, there are no specifics in this particular act that would deal with that directly. That is all the more reason this particular piece of legislation needs more study.

Uighur Muslims in ChinaStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Independent

Yasmin Ratansi Independent Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise the plight of over three million Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims who are interned in concentration camps in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of China. The Chinese government continues to subject them and other Turkic Muslims to forced labour, physical and psychological torture, and forced organ harvesting. Uighur women suffer forcible sterilization.

The Chinese government's method of political and anti-religious indoctrination, destruction of cultural sites and forcing Uighurs to denounce themselves as Muslims is akin to cultural genocide. I call on all our allies and partners to demand the closure of the concentration camps and the release of all detainees. I urge the passage of Bill S-204, which would criminalize organ trafficking and make it a punishable offence for Canadians to partake in transplant tourism.

Youth LeadershipStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the world grapples with the unprecedented challenges posed by COVID-19, young people are demonstrating their continued leadership.

In my riding, one of those leaders is Owen Durk. He is a grade seven student from Sir Isaac Brock Public School who safely organized a neighbourhood food drive this past week in support of the Guelph Food Bank. In just one day, Owen and his family collected over 325 pounds of food that will help people in our community to overcome hunger during this holiday season.

I want to thank Owen for the care and kindness he has shown for others. I encourage all Canadians who can to support their local food banks. I congratulate Owen and ask him to keep up the great work.

Edward HumeniukStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Conservative

David Yurdiga Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Edward Humeniuk.

Edward was a true pioneer of the Alberta oil sands. As an inventor, Edward played a significant role in developing state-of-the-art technology crucial to separating waste from bitumen. This technology has helped shape the oil sands refining process, and this process is still utilized today.

Alberta oil sands are the cornerstone of the Canadian economy. Every year, they generates billions in revenue for the government and create tens of thousands of jobs across our country. The oil produced is used to heat our homes, power our cars and create products we use every single day.

Like many others of his generation, Edward Humeniuk's work was an integral part of getting our province and our country to where it is today.

SudburyStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, including my constituents in Sudbury, deserve a safe and affordable home. That is why the Government of Canada is working with the City of Greater Sudbury to redevelop a former Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment into affordable housing.

Yesterday, on behalf of the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I joined Brian Bigger, the mayor of Greater Sudbury, to announce that the federal government is spending $566,000 to acquire the building on Sparks Street. The city will build a community housing building with 14 affordable housing units.

Last year, again on behalf of CMHC, I announced a $1.36-million investment in the Wade Hampton House in Sudbury. Operated by March of Dimes Canada, it provides affordable and supportive homes to at least 12 individuals with moderate to severe brain injury.

As we know, Canada's new rapid housing initiative will keep some of Canada's most vulnerable people and families safe, including many in Sudbury. That is why we will continue making these historic investments in affordable housing across the country.

Twelve Days of Action to End Violence Against WomenStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, from tomorrow until December 6, we will be observing the 12 days of action to end violence against women. This year, the campaign is running against the backdrop of the pandemic.

The lockdown has made things even more difficult for victims of domestic violence, and the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, which represents women's shelters across Quebec, has launched an appeal aimed directly at men. The Fédération is urging men to speak out if they witness violence happening in the workplace, to a friend or family member, or in public, or if they witness unacceptable behaviour such as sexist or violent jokes.

Men are also encouraged to sign an online pledge to end violence against women and to share the campaign handouts challenging other men to get involved.

Manon Monastesse, the director of the Fédération, said, “It is important for men to get involved. We will never be able to end violence against women without men. They need to model good behaviour for young men.”

I encourage everyone to don a white ribbon, the universal symbol for this campaign, because everyone needs to know that violence may not always leave a mark, but it always hurts. Now is the time to act.

Oil and Gas IndustryStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has embarked on a campaign to reset our economic system. He parrots the language used by global elites, telling Canadians that he needs to use this pandemic in order to build back better. The problem with this radical agenda, however, is that it leaves Canadians in the lurch.

Sadly, the criteria for the Prime Minister's better future is purposefully killing off industries that do not resonate with his reimagined envisioned world. Supporting the Canadian energy sector will not get him into the suave parties held in Davos or a seat on the UN Security Council, so in his mind the industry is not worth investing in. As a proclaimed environmentalist, his anti-energy campaign is dumbfounding because Canada's oil and gas industry actually has some of the highest environmental standards in the world. By restricting Canada's energy he is indirectly boosting production in other countries where environmental protections do not exist and where human rights atrocities happen daily.

The Prime Minister would rather have unethical blood oil shipped into our country, rather than have ethically produced oil shipped out. If the Prime Minister truly wants to build back better for Canadians, he must change his tune and he must start supporting this local industry.

IranStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, exactly one year ago, thousands of Iranians exercised their fundamental right to peaceful protest following an abrupt increase in the price of fuel. These peaceful protests were met by a brutal government crackdown, leading to the death of over 300 innocent civilians and dozens upon dozens of arbitrary arrests. Two months later, Flight 752, carrying 176 passengers and crew, was mercilessly shot down over the skies of Tehran by two missiles fired by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

This abhorrent pattern of behaviour is further reflected in the unjust treatment of the iconic Nasrin Sotoudeh, the human rights lawyer, and the horrific execution of Navid Afkari, a 27-year-old wrestling champion. These atrocities by the Iranian regime should not be ignored. No Iranian deserves to live amidst constant repression day after day, week after week and year after year.

For all these reasons, I would like to thank our government for sponsoring a resolution at the United Nations condemning the flagrant disregard for human rights by the Iranian regime. The international community should never look the other way. We must continue to hold the Iranian government to account and demand that it immediately end terrorizing its own people.