House of Commons Hansard #121 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was s-5.

Topics

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, for hours, days and even weeks now, I have been hearing my Conservative colleagues talk about the carbon tax and how the oil companies are going to pass the tax on to consumers.

I might have a suggestion, and I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. We could enshrine an obligation in the act to ensure that the carbon tax is paid directly out of the oil companies' profits and not passed on to consumers. I think the oil companies can well afford it, considering their record profits.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will respectfully completely disagree with the premise and principle of what the Bloc is saying. At the end of the day, it is using the carbon tax as a tax to add to the price of doing business, whether it be in the oil and gas sector or any other sector.

What we have seen is the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Green Party support carbon taxes over the course of the last several years. We have not seen emissions go down in any meaningful way in the right direction. What we have seen is the cost of living, groceries and home heating rise and a cost of living crisis in this country. When we talk about emissions reductions, we are talking about that coming from technology, carbon capture and storage, small nuclear modular reactors and so forth, which can be in our energy sector. That is a good way to keep the cost of living down and keep our emissions down as well.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, again, this is not about what the bill is supposed to be about, but there has been a focus on carbon tax, so I am going to ask my question about that and the fact that the Conservatives are so focused on it. My hon. colleague from the Bloc tried to ask about corporate greed.

The member is from Ontario. We saw the Conservative provincial government take the tax off gas prices in Ontario, yet interestingly, those gas prices have gone right back up. Yesterday I had to pay $1.78 at the pumps. Maybe the member could explain to me why that occurred, if corporate greed is not the reason for that.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, what I will say to the NDP on this front is that the last thing we need is an escalation and a tripling of the carbon tax for families, including those in the city of London and across the province of Ontario.

The record that we hold up on Bill S-5 is that the NDP keeps falling for Liberal promises when they do not deliver. It is time for them to stop backing them up. It is time for them to start holding Liberals to account on the environment and everything else.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add some comments on Bill S-5 tonight.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of my colleagues, members of the House and our colleagues in the Senate for the hard work and insightful debate that has already occurred on this legislation. As someone who farmed for decades and who was actively involved in many agricultural organizations, I was always attuned to concerns regarding the federal government's policies and regulations.

When I was first elected in the Manitoba Legislature, Premier Filmon, now the former premier, asked me take on the role of the environment, to be the shadow minister of the environment in Manitoba. I wondered why that would be so important to him at that time. I suddenly realized, with all of my farming and agricultural background, that the environment would probably be one of the most important issues facing agriculture in the next 30 years. It certainly has been in the last 25 years or so. That was a very important role to play.

A lot of the time we would rely on farmer-led organizations to keep us abreast of what the government was doing, particularly on approving crop protection products that we wanted to use as farmers. Some of the time we would get news reports and would have to write our elected officials to tell us what was really happening on the regulatory side of things. Quite frankly, regulations which get determined by departments and Treasury Board cabinet committee do not get sufficient attention in this place.

As farmers know, we must take care of the soil, water and air to ensure that our operations are sustainable. My dad had a quote, something that he taught me very young. He said, “If you look after the land, it will look after you.”

Farmers are stewards of the land, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is good for business. In the past couple of decades, there has been a tremendous amount of innovation in the agricultural sector. From the chemical farmers use, to how they apply them, they are light years from where they were back in the days when my father started farming in Elgin, Manitoba.

On the farm, we used crop protection products all the time. One example of this might be the fact that, when I started growing peas in 1971, there were very few chemicals that could be used on them at all. Today, there is a plethora of products out there to kill things, such as thistles, millet and wild oats, and these were not available to farmers in those days.

Due to the advancements in machinery, seed technology and the use of chemicals, farmers are now producing more food per acre than ever before. Hopefully that trend will continue. As our leader, the new leader of the Conservative Party has repeatedly said, we want to make Canada the breadbasket of the world. We have great opportunities.

However, due to the illegal invasion and brutal war currently being carried out in Ukraine by the Putin regime, we recognize how important the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector is for the world. Some of my colleagues were just referring to the importance of that food production capability earlier this evening.

A lot of the time Canadian farmers would see that crop protection products would be approved in like-minded nations, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and others, while taking a considerable amount of time to get approved in Canada. One example is, when I was a farm leader, we were dealing with products that were used in North Dakota but could not be used in Manitoba because the rules were different between their environmental protection agency and our pest management review board in Canada, in those days. The one that was most important at that time, when I was a wheat grower president, was dealing with fusarium in wheat.

Due to the processes set up, there is always a concern, as I was just referring to, that delays could impede access to the newest and most effective crop protection products available for the agriculture sector. At the end of the day, farmers want—

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have enormous respect for my colleague and his deep knowledge of agriculture. I am wondering if we have gone to Private Members' Business on an agriculture bill, or are we on Bill S-5?

I am certainly very interested in agriculture. I just do not see that he talking about Bill S-5.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

I will continue to remind folks to stick to the bill at hand, but I am giving them lots of leeway here as well.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his concern and for raising that with me. I do appreciate that fact, but I want to point out that we are in favour of moving the bill through second reading. I am, at least, and I am sure my colleagues are as well. However, I think this is very relevant because I am coming to the point where I want to say what I hope happens at committee with the bill. At the end of the day, farmers want a science-led approval process that is based in fact rather than hyperbole.

With that in mind, I will reference some very sage words that my friend and colleague Senator Robert Black said while debating this legislation. His words are incredibly important, so I would like to quote him directly because we have not really had a review since back in the 1980s with regard to soil science in Canada. He said:

...I have recently learned from a few agricultural stakeholders that there are minor concerns about the inclusion of and language around a precautionary principle throughout the bill, particularly since it states that a weight-of-evidence approach and a precautionary approach should be taken.

Members of the agricultural community are concerned that it’s commonly understood that a precautionary approach is used in the absence of data. A weight-of-evidence approach, on the other hand, suggests there is evidence in place.

While the balance between the precautionary principle and weight-of-evidence approaches referenced in the bill isn’t new, as it already is in CEPA, there is a need for clarity as to how it is to be applied to the broader subset of potentially toxic substances this bill brings into CEPA consideration.

It is important to note that there is existing guidance on how the two are balanced by Environment and Climate Change Canada. However, agricultural stakeholders have highlighted the critical need to ensure the end result is as fully informed decision making as possible. And I agree with their concern that Canadian regulators should have a clear mandate to pursue additional evidence where it’s found lacking.

Ultimately, given the important role this bill will play in evaluating substances present in our environment, I believe that where there is an absence of data, there should be legislated processes and mechanisms to request more data. I am hopeful that members of this chamber will consider such a matter at committee and investigate how we can possibly strengthen this bill to ensure its success.

I will close by saying that I echo what Senator Black had to say, and I hope the committee that ultimately studies this legislation, which is what I referenced earlier, invites numerous agricultural witnesses to get a fulsome analysis of their views on the bill. A prime example, in reference to Senator Sparrow, is the study he did and the books he wrote about the development and protection of our soils, which are completely relevant in this whole area. Although some may say that the agricultural industry is a bit of a stretch from Bill S-5, it is completely relevant if we listen to my colleagues who have already spoken to the bill. They noted food security in the future and being able to make sure that we have fertilizer for use in production and for maintaining but hopefully increasing the food supply in the world, because it is under attack as we speak.

I, for one, welcome the modernization management plan in Canada, if done correctly, with the aim of improving the environment and having an efficient process for crop protection products to be approved.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting for a number of hours today listening to members, particularly from the Conservative Party, talk about this legislation. Many of their comments have been brought to our attention over issues of relevancy. What I have found throughout the debate is that members have talked about passing this bill and getting it to committee, recognizing that there is a need to look at the possibility of amendments. However, it seems the Conservative leadership behind the curtains in the back room is determined not to allow the bill to get through second reading.

Given the fact that it has been before Parliament now for many months and that everyone in the chamber, at least by party, is supporting the legislation, it seems to me that this is the type of legislation that should pass into committee. I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on the need or desire of the House to see the bill looked at in committee.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, the bill is before the House. Many of us on the Conservative side of the House have stated we are in favour of the bill. I even pointed out in my presentation the types of witnesses that I hope go before the committee when it is discussing Bill S-5, this environmental management bill. None of us wants toxic substances.

I pointed out very clearly in my presentation tonight what is required in the agricultural industry to keep it vibrant. There have been huge technological changes and improvements made in the environmental use of products in the agricultural industry, and I use it as an example only because it is one I am familiar with. The same thing applies in forestry, mining and many other industries as well.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the context of legislation to protect the environment, transparency is very important, particularly regarding access to data. We need to know what we are talking about.

Would the member be in favour of making data on the environmental impacts of various industrial sectors, including agriculture, more accessible?

Perhaps people might realize that our farmers can also be part of the solution, particularly through agroforestry, and realize how carbon capture can be done through agriculture.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, of course I do. I believe we need to make sure we have as much clear data as possible. That is why I asked for certain types of individuals to come forward in the debate on this very bill. We need that expertise, as the member said, not just in the agricultural industry, but in mining, forestry and others as well, to see how it will impact not only the land but our other natural areas, such as waterways and the air in many of our cities and industrial areas.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, I remember being a city councillor in Penticton, where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans told the Penticton planning department that there was a fish habitat area in a chunk of land where we wanted to put in some stairs and it was prohibited. It turned out it was just a golf course's water hazard. There are issues when Ottawa says something falls under a particular definition that is not conducive or recognizable by the locals.

Amendment 19 introduces a new term, “vulnerable environment”, in reference to products that contain a substance or release a substance into the environment. If I were a farmer and someone in Ottawa started talking about vulnerable environments, especially at a time when farmers are having to put resources into new capital, new techniques and different types of new harvesting methods, to suddenly have these uncertain terms being injected into it would concern me. Does it raise the concerns of the member and does he think it raises the concerns of his constituents?

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, part of my presentation tonight was to make people aware of the concern the agricultural industry has. I pointed out that we need to have people on the ground who are utilizing these products and systems, because there are many land-use systems that we could be using to improve the types of agriculture production that we are using today, which would help solidify food security in the world. That is what I am referring to here.

We cannot do things that inhibit farmers from being able to feed the world. We are fortunate in Canada that we always have enough food, but we cannot take that for granted, as some of my other colleagues have said tonight. We need to make sure people know the rules around what can be used to produce food.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have five minutes, so I will pick and choose my talking points. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this bill on behalf of the good residents of Brantford—Brant.

By way of background, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 is the first major update since that time. The Liberals have had five years to bring this forward, and they failed to do so in a timely manner.

The bill recognizes that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment and requires the government to protect this right. However, the right is not defined in the act, and may be balanced with social, economic, health, scientific or other relevant factors.

Bill S-5 also puts in language to highlight the government's commitment to implementing UNDRIP and recognizing the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing the toxicity of a substance, as well as the importance of minimizing risks posed by exposure to toxic substances.

I want to highlight that this is an environmental bill. I would like to take the opportunity with the time I have remaining to highlight the government's failures on the environment.

The first is that the Liberal government has never met a single carbon emissions reduction target in all of its years in government.

The second is that carbon emissions have gone up under the Liberal government.

The third is that the carbon tax is an absolute failure. It has not reduced emissions, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that the majority of Canadians pay more in carbon taxes than they get back in rebates. That is a fact, but what we routinely hear on that side of the House is that the Liberals like to rewrite that narrative.

In 2022, the commissioner of the environment released 10 reports on the performance of the Liberal government in terms of protecting the environment. More than half of the reports show that the government was failing to meet its targets. To echo the comments of several of my colleagues today and on other days, the Liberal government has never had an environmental plan; it has a tax plan.

With respect to Bill S-5, we Conservatives have some concerns about the amendments passed in the Senate. The Senate passed 24 amendments, 11 of which made the bill significantly worse.

I want to go over some key points:

Canada's chemical management plan is a leader in the world.

Bill S-5 modernizes the CEPA and will ensure that a risk-based approach to chemical management is preserved in Canada.

Canada has completed more risk assessments and introduced more risk-management instruments than any other jurisdiction.

The bill recognizes a right to a healthy environment, which we fully support.

Ultimately, the Conservatives will support this bill, but we will be seeking amendments. The bill talks about a healthy environment, but it says nothing about healthy water. I want to point out, as another failure of the government, that when we look at the long- and short-term water advisories across this country, we still have 29 long-term drinking water advisories.

I will end there, as my time is up.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

When we return, the member will have five minutes remaining and then five minutes for a question and answer period.

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

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pursue a question I initially asked in the month of May relating to the upcoming June session, the first session, of the conference of the parties within the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. I asked the question as to whether Canada was going to attend. I was following up on a question from the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, who had just asked a similar question. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his response said that the Government of Canada was going to maintain an unwavering commitment to nuclear disarmament.

In the end, Canada did not send a delegation to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We did not even send an unofficial delegation of observers. This was a profound disappointment to the community within Canada that is looking to the government to stand up and work against the threat of nuclear war.

We have had a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the world since 1970. We had historic progress made. At the time the United States was under President Ronald Reagan and the then-nation of the U.S.S.R. was under Mikhail Gorbachev, they decided together to work to eliminate nuclear weapons. We have had significant backsliding since then from both the U.S. government and, of course, the U.S.S.R. is no longer. Mikhail Gorbachev, God bless and rest his soul, is no longer with us. The appallingly militaristic and brutal dictator within the alleged democracy of Russia, Vladimir Putin, is now bringing us closer to the threat of nuclear war than we have been at any time for very many decades.

I note that, as time has passed before I could pursue this question, ironically today's date places us very close to the anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, which took place in late October of 1962. Here we are in 2022. What have we learned and what have we done? We must do more to end the threat of nuclear war. As we look at Canada's role as a member of NATO and what is happening right now with Vladimir Putin mentioning specifically the potential threat of using nuclear weapons, that must be denounced so strongly at all times.

We know one of the reasons the U.S. government put forward to oppose the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was that it could “delegitimize the concept of nuclear deterrence upon which many U.S. allies and partners depend”. That is something for us to actually focus on regarding the importance of signing on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, that it would, in the words of the U.S., under former president Donald Trump, “delegitimize the concept of nuclear deterrence”.

That is certainly something we should support. We must delegitimize the notion of nuclear war, nuclear deterrence or nuclear strikes, if we are going to have a peaceful world. There is no question in my mind, and I will be interested in what the government representatives say to this tonight. Had we pursued aggressively the work we should do as a non-nuclear state without being so subservient to our nuclear state neighbour, as we did in the Ottawa Treaty to ban landmines, we could perhaps have kept the world much safer from Vladimir Putin.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Don Valley West Ontario

Liberal

Rob Oliphant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for both her original question and her statements tonight.

I want to be clear that Canada has always had a clear policy of disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy. The 52-year-old Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the NPT, a treaty with near-universal adherence, is at the root of Canada's nuclear policy. It is also unquestionably the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime.

Canada clearly acknowledges the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the TPNW, last year, and the first meeting of the states parties in late June of this year. We understand and appreciate the sentiment behind the TPNW, but I will reiterate tonight that Canada is not a state party to this treaty, as several of its provisions are incompatible with our NATO commitments.

NATO is a defensive alliance and, whether we like it or not, nuclear deterrence is currently a reality. However, we must and will continue efforts to strengthen the international arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. The best way to do that is through a step-by-step approach.

Under the current framework of the NPT, Canada is a very active member of both the ministerial-level Stockholm initiative and the non-proliferation and disarmament initiative. These groupings are cross-regional and bring a variety of different but valuable perspectives. These groups put forward concrete proposals to advance nuclear disarmament, many of which were widely supported at the NPT review conference in August in New York.

The Stockholm initiative in particular has served as a unifying force on nuclear disarmament. I have attended several meetings of the initiative and recognize that the short-term concrete actions recommended by the initiative have great potential to make real progress in our overall objective of a nuclear weapons-free world. This includes important risk-reduction measures that nuclear weapon states can take to reduce the risk of possible use of these weapons, which is all the more urgent given the current international context.

Canada is and will remain an active participant in multilateral efforts to develop nuclear disarmament verification processes and capacity. We provide financial and expert support to the International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament Verification and are part of the UN group of government experts on this issue. Co-operation in these fora on technical issues between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states builds trust and confidence and lays the groundwork for future disarmament work.

While the current international environment remains extremely difficult and even precarious, Canada will continue to take a constructive and ambitious approach to nuclear disarmament. Russia's obstructionism in international fora and its continual and reckless nuclear sabre-rattling pose a direct challenge to the rules-based international order of which the NPT is an integral part. Canada will work with all states, including TPNW proponents, to further our collective ambitions for nuclear disarmament.

There is a wide range of views on how we can make progress on nuclear disarmament. I saw that first-hand when I met with groups of Canadian civil society leaders on this issue earlier this year. We are listening continually to advocates on the subject, but in light of the precarious international situation, Canada's approach will continue to be one that engages diverse stakeholders and attempts to value all perspectives. Creativity is needed in this field to overcome the stalemates and abuse of fair process by bad faith actors. We are committed to engaging in reform and refreshing our international system. With that in mind, Canada will continue to engage with a broad coalition of countries to push for a nuclear weapons-free world.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is truly an hon. colleague and parliamentary secretary, but I am very disturbed that we did not even send observers to the Vienna conference for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. I think we need to look much more closely at how much more precarious our situation is now and how much less we were able to assist Ukraine because we could not say we would have a no-fly zone over Ukraine without increasing the risk of nuclear war.

We need to recognize that perhaps NATO is, in another reference, muscle-bound. It was unable to help deal with the Ukraine situation. Yes, of course it sent weapons to assist Ukraine, but we cannot risk getting involved and subjecting the people of Ukraine to a protracted brutal war. We need to find a route to peace, and perhaps we should start talking about why we are in NATO if it requires us to support nuclear weapons.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would simply reiterate that Canada's commitment to advancing nuclear disarmament is unwavering. Indeed, we were very aware and took very strong note of the first meeting of the state's parties of the TPNW. Important conversations were had. We are well aware of them, but with 191 states having joined the NPT in over 52 years of history, we are focused on continuing to strengthen that treaty regime.

As I have outlined, we are working through long-standing partnerships, such as the non-proliferation and disarmament initiatives and, more recently, established the Stockholm initiative on nuclear disarmament. These are important multilateral bodies that are trying to make a difference to move the needle on this significant issue. The diverse membership of these groups is their strength. Canada will be there.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, the people of Iran are at a critical point in their history. The protest movement in Iran, aimed at ousting the radical dangerous regime, has an incredible amount of momentum right now. I salute the courage and the heroism of the people involved in this movement. At the same time, the horrors of this regime have been going on for decades. There have been various protest movements over the years where the Iranian people have stepped out to fight for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Sadly, in the past these protests have not succeeded in achieving their fundamental objectives, but I am hopeful and optimistic that this movement seeking fundamental political change will succeed.

The fact that this repression, and the response from the people, had been going on for a number of years, led to the proposition of a motion in the House, which I put forward four years ago, to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity within the Criminal Code. That was back in 2018. Now, on that motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity, the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the entire Liberal caucus voted in favour of that motion to immediately list the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

In the intervening four years, not only did the government not list the IRGC, but we also saw no application of sanctions. We saw no action whatsoever. Up until recently, there was not a single official associated with the Iranian regime that even had Magnitsky sanctions applied. We periodically ask the government why. What is the plan? Why has it not listed the IRGC? Why are there no Magnitsky sanctions? Why has it not taken the steps that are vitally required?

Most recently, we had the murder of Mahsa Amini, which grabbed the public's attention around the world. The result of that was significant political pressure on the government, with tens of thousands of people rallying. These events were largely ignored by the government, but the political pressure mounted.

Then it wanted to look like it was doing something, so now we see this effort by the government to wrap itself in the image of this movement. The Prime Minister himself attended an event this weekend. I think protesters wanted to see what the government was going to do to take action. The Prime Minister will still not list the IRGC, so great, he showed up at an event weeks after the fact.

What I want to know from the government is, aside from the photo ops, aside from the lobbed questions, where is the substance? Why did it take so long for the government to do anything? Moreover, when will it actually list the IRGC as a terrorist organization?

It is bizarre to me. We had the Deputy Prime Minister make an announcement to say that the government recognized that the IRGC is a terrorist organization, so it would list it as a terrorist organization in the Immigration Act, instead of listing it in the Criminal Code. If the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledges that the IRGC is a terrorist organization, then why can we not list it as a terrorist organization in the Criminal Code?

All I can conclude from this is that the government wants to intentionally create some ambiguity. It says that it is listing the IRGC in the Immigration Act, instead of listing it as a terrorist organization in the Criminal Code, which is precisely what the Liberals voted to do four years ago, yet they have failed to act on that.

Is the government going to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization? Can we get a clear answer? If it acknowledges that it is a terrorist organization but refuses to list it, could the government finally explain to us why. What is its position on listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization, and why?

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Oakville North—Burlington Ontario

Liberal

Pam Damoff LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, on October 4 we marked 1,000 days since the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752, and our thoughts continue to be with the families of those who were killed. Keeping Canadians safe is of paramount importance to this government.

Iran's nefarious influence in the region and its support of terrorism must be addressed, and we are working with like-minded countries to continue to keep pressure on Iran to cease its unlawful behaviour. The brutal killing of Mahsa Amini by the so-called morality police and the Iranian regime's deadly response to the peaceful protests are once more displaying Iran's shameless disregard for human rights and the regime's support for terror.

The government, along with its international partners, is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions in accordance with international law. I would like to reiterate the robust measures Canada has imposed against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, in response to these recent incidents, as well as long-term actions again Iran's systemic human rights violations and ongoing behaviour that destabilizes regional security.

Canada imposes vigorous sanctions against the Iranian regime and its leadership under the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, which explicitly targets the IRGC and several suborganizations, including the IRGC air force and air force missile command. Since the beginning of October, Canada has already listed 42 individuals and 12 entities under SEMA, in addition to the 202 previously listed Iranian entities and individuals. Measures under SEMA prevent Canadians from dealing in any property belonging to listed persons. This effectively freezes all assets in Canada that belong to the sanctioned persons. Contravention of these provisions can carry heavy criminal penalties.

Additionally, Canada lists Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. This listing, together with the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, allows victims to bring civil actions against Iran for losses or damages related to terrorism.

Once Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, becomes law, it will align the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, with SEMA to ensure that all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under SEMA will also be inadmissible to Canada.

Further, on Friday, October 7, the Prime Minister announced that Canada will be pursuing a listing of the Iranian regime, including the IRGC leadership, under the most powerful provision of the IRPA. The Iranian regime, including its top leaders, more than 10,000 officers and senior members, will be inadmissible to Canada in perpetuity for their engagement in terrorism and systemic and gross human rights violations. Moreover, the UN Security Council passed a number of resolutions to impose sanctions on Iran, which are implemented into Canadian law under the United Nations Act.

The Criminal Code also sets out a terrorist listing regime to help prevent the use of Canada's financial system to further terrorist activity and to assist in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences. Several of Iran's key proxy actors are captured by this scheme.

For example, Canada has maintained the Criminal Code listing of the IRGC Quds Force as a terrorist entity since 2012. The Quds Force is recognized as responsible for terrorist operations and providing arms funding and training to other terrorist groups. We are committed to holding Iran accountable for its heinous crimes and human rights violations, and for threatening peace and security in the region and in Canada.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that now is not the time for half measures. The Deputy Prime Minister said that this is a terrorist organization. We have, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, a terrorist listing regime in Canada, and the government has persistently refused to use that terrorist listing regime to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

The question is, why? Why acknowledge the reality that this is a terrorist organization and then refuse to bring in measures that the government itself voted for? The parliamentary secretary cites actions taken by the previous Conservative government, such as the listing of the Quds Force, and she says they have maintained the listing. Bravo. They did not unlist organizations that had been previously listed.

The House voted in 2018 to list the IRGC in its entirety. That was before the downing of flight PS752. That was before the murder of Mahsa Amini, and it was before the recent protest movements. Could the parliamentary secretary clearly tell us when the government will end the half measures and list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, as it voted to do, recognizing what the Deputy Prime Minister has already said?

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, listing under the Criminal Code provides the legal and institutional framework to implement measures to freeze and forfeit terrorist property and to help investigate to potentially prosecute someone for certain offences.

Canada's listing of the IRGC's Quds Force and other Iran proxies is in line with the actions of our like-minded international partners, which also sanctioned elements of the IRGC under their domestic regimes. Listing under the Criminal Code is just one instrument in Canada's international and domestic counterterrorism strategy tool box in ensuring the safety of Canadians.

Canada is committed to standing up for human rights and to intervening against those who violate them. This includes ensuring that sanctioned senior members of the Iranian regime and its agencies do not benefit from or receive any economic or social support from Canada or its citizens.