Debates of Feb. 27th, 2020

Public Safety

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

Madam Speaker, this is a bit frustrating because I have asked the same question of the government so many times. I hope I will be clear enough as to give the government no excuse this time. Hopefully I will actually get some degree of an answer.

My question is why the government has not listed the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, a terrorist entity and if it is still the policy of the government to do so.

I will give a quick historical background on this.

Approaching two years ago, we passed in the House a motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity. That motion passed with the support of all members of the Conservative caucus and all members of the Liberal caucus, at least all those who were present. The Prime Minister and other leading ministers, such as the former ministers of public safety, foreign affairs, etc., were part of that vote and voted in favour of listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code.

In fact, the motion did not just say to list the IRGC, it said to do so immediately. The Conservatives followed up immediately. We told the government that it voted for a motion and that the House of Commons had expressed its desire to immediately list the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. We had asked for it to be done immediately and the government had agreed. We asked what the government would do about it. The government said that it would think about it, would study it and that the process was under way.

We understood there was a process that could take a month, two months or three months. It is not really plausible that it is approaching two years after the fact. Surely the listing process does not take that long. In fact, there have been cases where terrorist entities that have existed for less time have managed to be listed in a much shorter period of time.

The typical response, and maybe the response we will hear from the government tonight, is to usually talk about other things that have been done on human rights related to Iran. The government will not say that all those things are continuations of things that were done under the Harper government, but nonetheless it will point to those things.

The government will say that the IRGC Quds Force, which is part of the IRGC, is listed. Again, that was an action taken by the Harper government, not by the current government. The Quds Force is still listed as a terrorist entity. However, the motion that passed, approaching two years ago, was not to list the Quds Force. It was already listed. The motion was to list the IRGC in its entirety and to do so immediately.

Maybe tonight will be the night. Maybe we will not hear the smoke and mirrors of it still being in process. It is going to be in process for another 50 years. Hopefully we will not hear this “still in process” nonsense. Hopefully the government will not just remind us about the Quds Force, which is already listed, has been for a long time and is not the topic here.

Hopefully the government will answer the question. Is it still the policy of the government to list the IRGC? Is there a reason the government did not list the IRGC earlier, and why? What is its intention with regard to the listing of the IRGC? It should be a simple question. It has been asked over and over again in question period and late shows. Hopefully now is the time we get an answer.

Is it still the policy of the government to list the IRGC, why has it not done it yet and does it plan to do it in the future?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, our thoughts continue to be with the families of those who perished in the crash of Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752. The plane was carrying 176 people when it crashed, and all of those on board were killed, including 57 Canadians.

After initially denying its responsibility, Iran has since admitted that it unintentionally shot down the plane. As the Prime Minister has said, there will be much thought given to the potential consequences in the course of the coming weeks. For now, we are seeking full clarity on the circumstances that led to such a horrific tragedy.

The downing of flight 752 has brought renewed focus to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. Canada continues to have in place a series of strong measures to hold both Iran and the IRGC accountable.

In June 2019, Canada added three new Iran-backed groups to the list: Al-Ashtar Brigades, Harakat al-Sabireen and Fatemiyoun Division. Iran provides these three groups with substantial resources, including training and weapons to carry out terrorist acts that advance its goals in the region.

The Al-Ashtar Brigades, or AAB, aims to overthrow Bahrain's monarchy and targets Bahraini security forces primarily through the use of improvised explosive devices. Canada is not alone in designating AAB. In 2017, AAB was listed by the U.K., and the U.S. designated it as a foreign terrorist organization in 2018.

Harakat al-Sabireen, or HaS, is an Iranian-backed Shia group that supports the destruction of Israel. HaS was founded and is led by a former leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is itself a listed entity in Canada. Members of HaS fight against Israel alongside Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The U.S. designated HaS in 2018.

Finally, the Fatemiyoun Division, or FD, is supported and trained by the Quds Force and Hizballah. It serves as part of the Iran-backed forces fighting in Syria and has a presence in Afghanistan. FD is also known to have used Afghan children as child soldiers. In January 2019, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the FD for providing material support to Iran's Quds Force.

Canada continues to list the IRGC-Quds Force and a number of terrorist entities that have benefited from the force's patronage, including arms, funding and paramilitary training, and who help advance Iran's interests and foreign policy. These include Hizballah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Taliban.

We have imposed sanctions on Iran and the IRGC, as well as on senior members of its leadership under the Special Economic Measures Act. The regulations explicitly target the IRGC and several sub-organizations, including the IRGC air force and air force missile command. Iran also continues to be designated as a state supporter of terrorism under Canada's State Immunity Act.

The member can be assured that Canada is looking at all possible options to constrain the activities of Iran that threaten national security.

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

Madam Speaker, that response clearly demonstrates how uninterested the government is in engaging in a serious response to a serious and important question about foreign affairs and national security. We gave the opportunity to the minister, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs or the parliamentary secretary for public safety to respond to the question, and we have the great fog readout of policy detail that in no way engages with a very simple and clear question. It is not as if the government did not have advance notice of this.

Members know the way these late shows work: The government knows a long time in advance that the question is going to be asked and exactly what the question is going to be. Again and again we ask the same question, and not only has the government not bothered to answer, but the foreign affairs and public safety teams could not even be bothered to show up.

Again, this is a simple question: Why did the government not list the IRGC as a terrorist entity? Does it still intend to list the IRGC? If the answer is no, it should just tell us no. The House deserves an answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this listing of regime is an important tool for countering terrorism in Canada and globally, and it is part of the government's commitment to keeping Canadians safe. 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, including listing the IRGC Quds Force. These actions are broadly consistent with our international partners, who have designated components of the IRGC under their own sanctioned regimes.

This past June we listed three militant groups that are aligned with, and controlled by, the Quds Force and operating in Bahrain, the Gaza strip, Syria and Afghanistan. A listing imposes severe penalties for people and organizations that deal with property or finances of a listed entity. Another important point is, of course, that once listed, an entity falls within the definition of a terrorist group in the Criminal Code. This helps to facilitate the laying of terrorism-related charges against perpetrators and supporters of terrorism.

Ethics

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House.

I have said before and I will say again that, when I was appointed by the leader of the official opposition as the shadow minister for ethics, I told the leader, and I have told folks who have asked, that I hoped to be the most bored in the shadow cabinet, that I would not have any work to do.

Regrettably, the government has demonstrated through its top-down model of disregard for the rules, not only of this place but the rules writ large, that we seem to find ourselves constantly following up on the ethical violations of the Prime Minister, his cabinet members and his backbenchers.

I had the opportunity to ask a question in the House a few weeks ago about former member Joe Peschisolido, who was found guilty of having broken the conflict of interest code. The code is laid out in such a way that it is very easy for us to follow. The purpose of the code, as colleagues know, is so that Canadians can continue to have confidence in their elected officials and have confidence in public institutions.

When we, as the finance minister did, forget to disclose that we have a French villa, for example, Canadians find that a bit incredible to believe.

Madam Speaker, when you and I filled out our disclosures, I do not think that we paused too long on the French villa box. You and I both know how many French villas we have, as I am sure the Minister of Finance did.

In Mr. Peschisolido's case, he failed to disclose a wide range of things. I encourage interested Canadians to take a look at that. I also encourage the government to do the same.

The response I got from the government when I asked the government House leader was that, “Oh, that member is no longer a member of our caucus, so we don't know how it has anything to do with us.” That speaks to the culture that exists in the government benches. That speaks to what we have seen with the Prime Minister twice being found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act, which is also in place to ensure that Canadians can have confidence in their executive, the Prime Minister and his or her ministers.

Whether it is the SNC-Lavalin scandal, clam scam or forgotten French villas, we have seen this litany of ethical breaches with the government. Most recently, again on the subject of disclosures, we make these disclosures to the commissioner with regard to members' personal dealings so that we can make sure members aren't being unduly influenced financially in a pecuniary manner.

The Prime Minister just did not answer the questionnaire. He is required to do so. He did not do it. In response, when he was called out on it, it was an administrative oversight. A week later, the Ethics Commissioner published who had failed to file their disclosures. Canada's Prime Minister's name appeared again.

When will the government start taking the confidence that Canadians have put in them seriously? Do they need any help following those rules?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, allow me to provide a quote with respect to what the commissioner said. He stated, “Where I conclude that a Member has contravened the Code and I find no mitigating circumstances, as was the case in this inquiry,” as the member referenced, “I may recommend a sanction for the House to impose on the contravening Member. However, in the present case, given that Mr. Peschisolido is no longer a Member and therefore not subject to the rules governing Members of the House of Commons, issuing such a recommendation would serve no purpose.”

I think the government, or at least the party, has been very consistent in our approach in regard to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We recognize when mistakes are made, and we follow and respect the advice and recommendations that are provided and thank the commissioner for the fine work he does.

The problem I had with the question posed by the member across the way is he tries to come across as if this is sensitive and he did not want to be kept busy, and all this kind of stuff. To that I say, “balderdash”.

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

Is that parliamentary? Can you say “balderdash” in the House?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there have been so many days when I have seen that the primary objective of the official opposition was character assassination. Its members will constantly go all out to try to identify an issue as an ethical breach, as if the Conservatives, the New Democrats or any other political party has never done anything wrong. Members need to be careful when they throw stones in glass houses.

The member cited how the Minister of Finance broke the code of ethics. We respect what the commissioner ruled on that. Does the member know that the Minister of Finance did not intentionally do what the member is proposing he did? In the case of that so-called French villa, it was shortly thereafter that the fact that the Minister of Finance had a house in France was published in a major newspaper here in Canada. There was no attempt to intentionally hide it.

Yes, sometimes mistakes happen. Members of Parliament on all sides of the House make mistakes, and the commissioner investigates them and comes up with recommendations. To try to give the illusion that there is only one political entity that makes mistakes inside this House is a false impression. There are mistakes made on all sides of the House. When a mistake is made, we need to recognize it and take corrective action. That is what we have seen with this government.

If the member wants to talk about proactive measures, I would remind him of the proactive disclosures we made with respect to the allowances of all members back when we were the third party in this House. We had to literally drag the Conservatives into supporting proactive disclosure. This Prime Minister and this government have taken the responsibility of being open, transparent and accountable very seriously. I would argue that this is something this government has been very good at, especially if we compare it to the Stephen Harper era. We have seen much more open government, transparency and accountability, which was lacking when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that I think it is disrespectful to be heckling when members are speaking, even if it is during the late show. All of the contributions that members make need to be heard, and everyone needs to have that respect to be heard and be responded to.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say “balderdash” to that.

I do not believe that “character assassination” is the correct term to be used here, because that would imply that what I said was malicious and unjustified. It is a fact that the Prime Minister was twice found guilty of breaking the law, and when he did, he did not apologize; rather, he said he would never apologize. He said he would stand up for jobs, but we know that he did not know what he was standing up for, other than his own seat.

My offer to the parliamentary secretary is in good faith. I am happy to work with him to develop a curriculum for the Prime Minister, the ministers and members of the government backbenches on how to properly follow the ethical guidelines that are in place. Is he interested in taking me up on that offer?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would welcome the participation or a nice sit-down discussion with the member with respect to how it is important that we listen to, follow and look at ways to improve a system, and not only for the Ethics Commissioner.

We can talk about the ombudsmen and election officers. Independent officers of Parliament serve our Parliament exceptionally well. When they come out with reports, we should listen so we can respond, so we can try to make our system work that much better.

I would acknowledge that we need to recognize that it is not just one member or one political entity that needs to learn things from reports. All political entities in the chamber would benefit. Maybe we can start that dialogue over a cup of coffee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.)