House of Commons Hansard #158 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sanctions.

Topics

Official LanguagesOral Questions

February 10th, 2023 / 12:10 p.m.

Independent

Alain Rayes Independent Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Madam Speaker, after denying the decline of French in Canada, the Liberal member for Saint-Laurent doubled down by making misleading and unacceptable comments about Bill C-13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

She is going against her own minister for the sole purpose of derailing this long-awaited bill that will better protect the French language across the country. Out of respect for all francophones, will the Prime Minister or the minister show some leadership and ask the member for Saint-Laurent to withdraw her remarks and provide an official apology in the House?

Official LanguagesOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Nickel Belt Ontario

Liberal

Marc Serré LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but what he said is not true. We are the first government to recognize the decline of French across the country and throughout Quebec. That is why it is important that we continue to move forward with this ambitious bill, which has teeth and will make a difference. It will give us the tools to address the decline of French across the country.

Once again, we call on all members of the House to work together to ensure that Bill C-13 is passed as soon as possible. This is important for minority communities across the country.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Andy Fillmore LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning decorum in the House. Like many members, you may have noticed a new behaviour that has crept into the House in the 44th Parliament that was previously not present to my notice.

Madam Speaker, as you well know, members may rise to their feet to speak in the House when you recognize them and, conversely, members who have not been recognized should remain in their seat. Of course, the Speaker recognizes only one speaker at a time, and therefore only one member should be standing at a time.

Lately, mostly during question period but not only during question period, some members, when they are asking multiple questions in a row, remain standing while the member to whom they have posed their questions has been recognized by the Speaker and is standing to answer the question. In other words, two members are standing at the same time, when only one has been recognized. At a minimum, this new behaviour is tantamount to interrupting the recognized speaker, but at worst, it has, at times, risen to the level of attempting to intimidate the recognized speaker.

Another increasingly common variant of this behaviour is when a member, understandably eager to ask their question or to share their S.O. 31, is rising to their feet far too early, sometimes 30 to 60 seconds before being recognized to do so. This, too, is tantamount to interrupting the recognized member.

This is a question of decorum in the House, as remaining standing while another member has been recognized is plainly disrespectful to the recognized member. I am asking for a ruling on the permissibility of two members standing while only one has been recognized and for appropriate direction to all members to rise to their feet only when recognized by the Speaker.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

This will be taken under advisement, but it is something that has been seen on both sides of the House.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, this is relatively on the same point of order, although I would suggest that a member rising early prior to their statement or prior to their question is reasonable. I do believe, and this applies to all parties, that if a caucus is being disruptive, you, Madam Speaker, have the right to dock the question in question period. In fact, that applies to all caucuses.

Second, I would suggest that you remind all parties that during question period, points of order are only allowed on a technical basis, such as problems with interpretation, and not procedurally. If you could remind all members, that would be welcomed.

Decorum in the HousePoints of OrderOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Nobody raised a point of order during this question period, and this matter will be taken under advisement.

Federal Electoral Boundaries CommissionRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, a certified copy of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-314, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table today the mental health protection act. As members know, medically assisted suicide was legalized in Canada in 2016. Under Bill C-14, medical assistance was expressly limited to capable adults who have an irremediable disease that causes enduring and intolerable suffering that cannot be alleviated, and when their natural death is reasonably foreseeable.

At the time, the government and its supportive stakeholders assured Canadians that this would not lead to a slippery slope on which the scope of MAID would be continually be expanded to include other Canadians. Not surprisingly, in the intervening seven years, the government has expanded the scope of MAID by de facto extending its scope to those who are not dying, but who are living with disabilities.

More recently, the government expanded MAID to include mentally ill persons and also signalled its intention to extend this right to mature minor children. Clearly, we are on the slippery slope many of us had warned about, and Canadians have a right to ask who is next. Will it be the drug addicted, the indigent, the homeless, or needy veterans? What about willing seniors who are tired of life? Where does it end?

My bill would reverse this momentum and repeal the government's decision to extend MAID to the mentally ill. The evidence from mental health experts is very clear. There is no consensus in Canada that the mentally ill should be covered by Canada's medically assisted death regime. Issues of irremediability, competency and suicidality are not anywhere close enough to being resolved to justify this major policy shift in favour of death.

Let me be clear: My bill does not, in any way, reverse the rest of Canada's MAID regime. Instead, it arrests Canada's slide down the slippery slope of assisted suicide, which so many of us had predicted would happen. I would respectfully ask that all of my parliamentary colleagues give thoughtful consideration to my bill, and join me in protecting and supporting the most vulnerable in our society.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

ImmigrationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I am tabling a petition on the immigration backlog. Petitioners are reminding the government that the backlog is over two million applications. They are specifically drawing the attention of the Government of Canada to seven immigration programs. I will not read them all, but I will draw members to some that are effecting my riding specifically.

The service standard for international experience Canada class was 56 service days. Only 24% of applications met that standard. For the skilled trades program applications via express entry, at the time of the petition, 80% of those were supposed to be processed in 180 days. Only 8% overall met that standard. The third I will mention is the new parent and grandparent super visa applications have an 80% goal of meeting the service standard in 112 days, but only 41% of them met that standard.

The petitioners are asking that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship update the immigration system to pave the way for efficient and streamlined processes to address Canada's ongoing needs.

Oil and Gas IndustryPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of folks across the Prairies, particularly in Alberta, who have had bad dealings with oil companies. Oil companies have abandoned their contaminated assets and have left vulnerable families, like the Jessa family in my home province of Alberta, with the bill. The companies are not cleaning it up. This petition calls for companies to be held accountable, but is also calling on the government to support those families in ensuring that the assets are cleaned up.

Canada Post CorporationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of the good people of Winnipegosis, who are forced to drive 40 minutes to pick up their mail after Canada Post closed its local post office multiple times. These rural residents are feeling punished for simply living in rural Canada. These valid concerns are amplified for seniors, persons with disabilities and those who do not have the ability to travel.

They are calling on the Liberal government to provide a detailed explanation of why this essential service was closed, despite anticipated staffing shortages. They are calling on the government to work with Canada Post and the Minister of Rural Economic Development to ensure that these temporary post office closures in rural areas are not normalized. I support the people of Winnipegosis.

Ship RecyclingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to table this petition on behalf of residents of Union Bay on Vancouver Island.

They want to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the significant risks to workers and the environment associated with ship recycling due to the presence of a wide variety of hazardous materials in end-of-life marine vessels.

They cite that Canada, unlike other jurisdictions, lacks standards on ship recycling and unregulated ship recycling activities, which are putting our oceans, coastal communities and workers at risk, and that we lack domestic oversight of ship recycling and disposal of end-of-like marine vessels. This frustrates Canada's ability to ensure compliance with its international obligations under the Basel Convention.

They are calling for action to develop enforceable federal standards to reduce the negative environmental impacts of ship recycling; to provide assistance through loans or grants to ensure we have a reputable ship recycling program; and to develop a strategy for recycling end-of-life federally owned marine vessels.

There is an environmental disaster happening in our riding. They are calling for action.

Falun GongPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that advocates meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of openness, compassion and tolerance.

In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intense nationwide campaign of persecution to eradicate Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres and prisons, where torture and abuse are common. Thousands have died.

The petitioners are in part asking us to publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for her advocacy on this issue.

I am wondering if she could elaborate on her comments with respect to inauthentic visa letters.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague asked this question. There was another item in the Globe and Mail article today that suggests Senator McPhedran, in her affidavit, may have submitted information about what were deemed to be 640 inauthentic letters to the government in September 2021.

During that time, my office communicated with IRCC, GAC and other officials over 30 times between August 2021 and July 2022 on the file that pertains to this issue. Not once did they confirm or deny that these visa letters were authentic or inauthentic.

This story raises all sorts of concerns about who knew what in the government and at what time. At the very least, if this is true, my constituent missed the opportunity to apply for a real program. How many other people did this happen to?

I implore colleagues of all political stripes to work to get the ministers, the former ministers and the staff named in this affidavit in front of committee or in front of the House to find out what really went on. This has huge implications for the fairness, equity and integrity of our immigration system.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about Bill S-8.

For the benefit of my constituents who may be interested in following this, this is an act that started its life in the other place last spring, a month or so before Parliament rose for the summer. We are talking about Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Last year the senators recognized a gap in the law when it comes to the imposition of sanctions against other countries, organizations or individuals for breaches of international peace and security, as well as human rights violations.

The senators fast-tracked this legislation. It is not contentious; I believe that it has support from all parties in this House. However, unfortunately, it has been parked in the House of Commons since early fall; here we are finally, in February, debating it. What was the delay? What is the holdup? This needs to be done.

Bill S-8 was introduced around the time of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, an unjustified and unjust war, as well as a blatant violation of international law. The timing of this legislation is not coincidental. It is in response to the illegal invasion by Russia of our friends in Ukraine. The legislation is long overdue.

What does it do? Canada, on the advice of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, can and does impose sanctions against certain states or individuals. This is pursuant to two Canadian laws: the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, better known as the Magnitsky law.

Under the Special Economic Measures Act, Canada can impose sanctions for grave breaches of international peace, gross and systemic human rights violations, or actions of corruption. Under the Magnitsky law, Canada can impose sanctions on foreign nationals responsible for, or complicit in, extrajudicial killings, torture or gross human rights violations.

I think some background on the Magnitsky act would be useful. There was an American investor by the name of Bill Browder who worked and invested in Russia's economy after the end of the Cold War and after Russia opened up its economy to the world. Mr. Browder made a lot of money, and this drew the attention of the Russian government, particularly President Vladimir Putin. Mr. Browder's Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, also drew the attention and the ire of the Russian authorities. Eventually, Mr. Magnitsky died in a Russian prison, clearly the victim of an extrajudicial killing, torture and a gross violation of human rights, to pick up on the language of the Magnitsky law.

Mr. Browder escaped Russia, and he used his influence to convince first the United States and then other countries, including Canada, to adopt what has become known as Magnitsky's law. This law, different of course and unique in each country, gives the government of said country the right and ability to impose financial sanctions against foreign nationals responsible for or complicit in such horrific actions. That is what the Magnitsky act does.

We had Mr. Browder appear before this Parliament's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on February 10, 2022. One should note the timing. This was exactly two weeks before Putin's Russia invaded Ukraine. We did not know that was going to happen, although there was every indication that Putin would invade Ukraine. He had done it before, in 2014, shortly after Russia hosted the Winter Olympics in nearby Sochi. At that time, Putin waved goodbye to the world and then ordered his tanks into the Crimean Peninsula. Sadly, the world looked the other way.

Seven years later, in 2022, Putin was again flexing his muscles. Again, he was hoping and expecting that the world would be looking the other way. That was the context when Mr. Browder was giving his testimony in front of the committee.

Here is a sample quote from his testimony:

As we look forward to what to do about this situation, my prescription is to make a list of the 50 biggest oligarchs who look after Putin's money. There's no mystery as to who these people are...and we hit these people with Magnitsky sanctions.

We start with five before any invasion to show Putin we're serious. We then tell him that he has 10 days to pull back from the border or we hit him with another five. If he invades, we go after the rest of the 40. I believe this would stop Putin in his tracks and he wouldn't invade Ukraine.

Three months later, on May 17, 2022, Mr. Browder appeared before another committee, the public safety committee, as part of its Russia study. Again, members can note the timing. This meeting was taking place a few months after Putin invaded Ukraine. At that meeting, this question, or challenge, was put to Mr. Browder: “Clearly, sir, something went wrong. Either the [Canadian] government didn't take your advice or you underestimated Putin's propensity for recklessness.”

This was part of Mr. Browder's answer:

[Putin] had looked at our conduct, and when I say “our”, I mean Canada, the United States, the EU and the U.K. He looked at our conduct after the invasion of Georgia—nothing; after the illegal annexation of Crimea—effectively nothing; after MH17 was shot down—nothing; and, after the Salisbury poisonings—nothing. He was of the opinion that we weren't going to do anything if he invaded Ukraine.

Historians will debate whether we and our allies acted soon enough, used our sanctioning tools aggressively enough or did everything in our power to convince Putin to back off. Maybe we could have done more, and with the benefit of hindsight we probably could have done more and should have done more, but I want to be clear that it is not as if we are doing nothing.

After the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, Canada, using the existing Special Economic Measures Act, imposed sanctions against more than 1,000 individuals and 241 entities linked to ongoing violations of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our Magnitsky Law, parenthetically, came into force some time later, in 2017.

Could we have done more to help our Ukrainian friends? Probably, but today we are doing the right thing. It is a small thing, but it is the right thing. With Bill S-8, we are amending three other acts and expanding certain regulations, all pertaining to how we deal with refugees, and in particular refugees who, when they present themselves at our border, are discovered to be subject to sanctions under one or another of our sanction laws.

The Minister of Public Safety put it this way: “Banning close associates and key supporters of Putin's regime, including those responsible for this unprovoked aggression from entering our country is one of the many ways in which we're holding Russia accountable for its crimes.” We can argue about the veracity of the statement that Canada acted in “many ways” to hold Russia accountable. That is a debate for another day.

I would wrap it up with the following comment. I and all members of Parliament, I believe, have been banned from entering Russia. After this bill, Bill S-8, passes, Mr. Putin and his oligarchs would be banned from entering Canada, as if they would ever risk being arrested and tried for war crimes.

This is important legislation. It is non-controversial. It has the support of the Conservative Party. We have always been in support of the decisive use of our Magnitsky act to sanction international criminals. It needs to be passed soon, and it needs to receive royal assent to close the gap.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, I was encouraged by many of the thoughts the member expressed to the House, and I would concur that at the end of the day there is a powerful statement to be made by the passage, with what appears to be unanimous support, of the principles of the legislation.

I just want to ask the member to provide his comments in regard to the following. When we have legislation of this nature and it ultimately passes, or at least the principles of the legislation, it sends a wonderful and powerful message abroad, a message that people need to hear, which is that there is a consequence to regimes that behave against Canadian values. Would he not agree?

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Madam Speaker, yes, the Magnitsky act sends a powerful signal to the world that Canada stands up for human rights. If we read the story about Sergei Magnitsky and how he was mistreated for doing the right thing, then I believe the world will support us as we try to do our best to support human rights around the world. It sends a good, strong signal. I am happy this is one act that, and I am assuming this, we can pass unanimously in the House, and that too would send a strong message.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

Madam Speaker, as mentioned, Conservatives are supportive of this legislation, but the challenge we have is the difference between words and implementation. I think of how the terrorist Omar Khadr was given $11 million, and we rolled out the carpet. He killed an American sergeant in Afghanistan. These are the problems we have. Again, with Iran, the Liberals have the right words, but not the actions with respect to the Islamic regime to bring in these actions and call the guards on these terrorist organizations.

I wonder if the member could make some comments about what the Liberals say and do with respect to following through with legislation.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge is absolutely right. Just because we have a good law does not mean that it is administered properly. He raised a couple of examples about citizens of this or other countries who go abroad to be involved in terrorist actions and then come home again and how they are treated.

It is a problem in Canada as well. Not only are ISIS war brides coming home, but also the men who were actively involved in working with the ISIS army, and they apparently have a right to come back to Canada. How are we going to treat them? Are they going to be charged here under our criminal laws? Do we have evidence available to properly prosecute these people who have committed crimes abroad? Are we going to be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? These are the real challenges that face Canada while living in a dangerous world.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Madam Speaker, the member brought up in his intervention how we would treat people who are returning from overseas who have potentially committed serious war crimes or crimes against humanity, so I wonder if he can elaborate on this matter.

We have individuals who either fought for, fought with or are sympathizers of ISIS, such as Daesh, a proto-state across the Syrian-Iraqi border, which committed many war crimes and crimes against humanity. We now have families who are returning from a specific camp, which is not too far from Al-Hol, and there are about 70,000 POWs and families being held there. These Canadians are being returned to Canada and being charged with offences by the RCMP for travelling overseas to join a terrorist organization and for membership in a terrorist organization.

Beyond that, it is very difficult for the Canadian government to prove crimes that were conducted overseas because the collection of evidence may not be ideal, the witnesses might be dead or we just may not know who they are, so I wonder if the member can elaborate on that, because that is part of the sanctions regime as well.

Some of these individuals should be sanctioned, and others are not being sanctioned because we do not know they are members of these organizations. This is where the difficulty lies. We can only make someone inadmissible if we know what they are being made inadmissible for, and part of this legislation will need a lot of intelligence-gathering.

I am just putting a lot of ideas on the table for the member to add to the discussion.