Debates of Feb. 14th, 2023

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech by wishing my wife a happy Valentine's Day. As usual, we are debating an important bill. We never waste any time. We always do constructive things and get results in the House. Unfortunately, I am obligated to stay here and I cannot be with my wife, so I want to wish her a happy Valentine's Day.

It is the busiest time of day here in the House, a great time to speak because there are always so many people, so that is nice.

I used to work in theatre, where there is an unwritten rule. Obviously, I am not talking about Broadway, where the theatres are always full. I am talking about Montreal theatre. The unwritten rule is that there must always be more people in the audience than on stage. Otherwise, the show is cancelled. I can say that I once had to cancel a show when there were only two actors on stage, which might give my colleagues an idea of the situation. That time, it was a complete flop.

Obviously, I am pleased to speak to this subject because last week I rose to speak to the Conservative motion, which has come back today. It is always interesting with the Conservatives. They do one thing and then repeat the same thing the following week. The motion was on the carbon tax and I had the opportunity to say that it was not a good idea to cancel the carbon tax.

In Quebec, we have solutions and wood is part of the solution. Wood is very important. It is an integral part of our culture. It is omnipresent in our economy, in our recreation, in our concern for the environment, in our culture and even in our language. In Quebec, we talk about forest capital. It is important. We create infrastructure to be able to leverage the benefits of this forest and we work very hard for that.

My colleague was saying earlier that there are no trees in his riding. There are trees in Quebec. That is not a problem. The forest sector is even a big part of our conversations, because in Quebec we say that we heat with wood and eat Yule logs. It is important.

There is a Quebec expression that I do not know how my friends, the interpreters, are going to translate: “Swing la bacaisse dans l'fond de la boîte à bois”, or swing your logs into the wood bin, which actually means leave your work behind and join the party. The forest is very important in Quebec. We even say that we walk in the woods. I do not know if this translates well in English, but when children resemble their parents, we say that the fruit does not fall far from the tree.

There is another important aspect. The first Quebeckers discovered this continent and travelled around it. What is the U.S. Midwest today was actually discovered by Quebeckers, the “coureurs de bois”.

Let us get back to Bill S-222.

The Bloc Québécois has long been committed to promoting the forestry sector and to upgrading forestry products. We have long been proposing that the federal government use its procurement policy to support the lumber industry, a key sector for Quebec. For years, we have been requesting that the Quebec forestry sector, and not just the oil industry, get its fair share of federal investments. Last year, the Liberals gave $8.5 billion in direct and indirect aid to the oil industry. That is completely outrageous. The UN said it was time to put an end to fossil fuel investments, and the Liberals invest $8.5 billion. That is more than the Conservatives invested back in the day.

We also believe that federal support should start with a public procurement policy that promotes the use of wood products. This industry needs to be promoted rather than the focus always going to the Ontario auto industry or the Alberta oil and gas industry.

The use of wood in construction is on the rise, and wood is recognized for its contribution to fighting climate change. The choice of wood as a construction material is significant. It is a local, sustainable and renewable resource. A life-cycle assessment of wood shows it has an exceptional environmental performance.

Quebec already has a strategy. We already have a national lumber strategy and a policy for integrating wood into construction. Now it is up to the Government of Canada to contribute.

In September 2020, the Bloc Québécois presented its green recovery plan, in which we talked a lot about wood. In April 2021, the Bloc Québécois even organized a forum in Trois-Rivières under the theme “forests and climate change”. That is important. Later, the Bloc Québécois announced a vast study on the economic and environmental optimization of the forestry sector.

That is important. We even made eight proposals to the federal government. We are not always criticizing. We have constructive proposals to maximize the potential of Quebec's forests. The Bloc Québécois has even proposed a road map—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the member to give right of reply.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay has five minutes for his right of reply.

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

Madam Speaker, it being Valentine's Day, I do want to send my love to my wife, Margaret, at home in Penticton. She texted me last week reminding me that it was our wedding anniversary, so I have some ground to make up when I get home next week.

I rise in reply to the debate on Bill S-222, a bill that comes to us from the Senate, but originated as my private member's bill, Bill C-354 in the 42nd Parliament, and has been mentioned before that. There was a version that was a Bloc Québécois bill earlier than that.

I would like to thank Senator Diane Griffin for introducing this bill in the other place and Senator Jim Quinn for carrying the torch after Senator Griffin retired last year.

This bill has been on a long journey to get here and it is gratifying to see the strong support it is getting from all sides of the House. I wanted to say I especially enjoyed the enthusiastic support that I was getting from the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert when he was unfortunately interrupted. I was enjoying that discourse.

This is truly a piece of legislation whose time and place has come. This is a bill that simply asks the minister of public works to consider the environmental benefits of building materials when creating federal infrastructure.

The built environment represents up to 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions, and one key component of those emissions, and the opportunity to reduce them, lies in the choice of building materials. Wood and especially the new technologies of creating mass timber or engineered wood are an excellent example.

Wood contains huge amounts of sequestered carbon. If it is harvested properly and sustainably, and used to create long-lasting building products, it can be a very valuable tool in our fight against climate change. I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Nunavut, who mentioned that this has to be developed and harvested considering the rights of indigenous peoples across the country.

I was inspired to bring this bill forward in 2016 by a company in my riding called Structurlam. Structurlam has been the leading manufacturer of mass timber in North America for many years. In Quebec, we have Chantiers Chibougamau, which has been leading that industry in eastern North America for the most part.

I see the member for Abbotsford is here and I have to mention StructureCraft, a company in his riding, that is producing similar materials. Just recently, we added another major supplier of mass timber with the Kalesnikoff family, who are building a very large modern facility in South Slocan in my riding.

These facilities are creating glulam timbers and cross-laminated timber panels that, in turn, are producing large, beautiful and safe buildings that are not only functional, but are also sequestering large amounts of carbon.

They are also providing relief for the Canadian forestry industry, which has been struggling through firestorms, beetle epidemics, illegal tariffs and a shrinking available harvest. With mass timber, we will have more jobs and added value for each tree we cut. We need to support this sector in Canada.

This bill does not exclude other building materials. The cement industry is developing new technologies that sequester carbon. The steel industry is developing new technologies that make steel production greener.

When the minister looks at the life-cycle analyses for each of these products, and those analyses are already being developed by the federal government, this bill would make sure that government procurement creates a significant environmental benefit.

Government procurement could also ensure that Canada remains a leader in the mass timber sector. It would allow new facilities to grow and prosper, creating jobs and providing a new domestic market for lumber in a time when our major trading partner to the south is doubling down on protectionism. Government procurement, guided by this small bill, could spur innovation in the cement and steel sectors.

I want to thank everyone who spoke to this bill. This bill would be a simple but significantly important step in our fight against climate change. We would also have beautiful buildings that would last generations.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

Accordingly, the question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Carbon Pricing

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, on November 25, I asked a question of the government in the House about the repeal of the carbon tax. It was based on what was happening around the world, as the world's economies became more stressed due to the economic insecurity brought about by higher energy prices around the world. I got a response from the associate minister of finance. I do not know why he has that title, but he is the member for Edmonton Centre. His song and dance in the House of Commons was a little bit of an embarrassment, which I have been told many times by Canadians who have watched the actual exchange. I apologize to them, but that is what question period has become at this point in time, where people do not actually get answers to real questions that are asked. However, let us be serious. I am going to ask the parliamentary secretary to respond to my question tonight.

The world is facing an energy problem based on CO2. Countries are withdrawing their CO2 taxes and actually giving money to their citizens and industries to deal with the energy insecurity that is happening around the world, because they are short of energy, and this started for a number of reasons. However, the costs have gone up, and total subsidization in Europe at this point in time, over the last year, has amounted to over 800 billion euros. This is not what was collected from carbon taxes; this is subsidizing citizens for their energy expenses at this point in time, because the energy costs have gone so high.

So, Europe is withdrawing taxes and actually subsidizing its citizens. Canada is on a different course, where we are actually going to increase energy taxes on Canadians.

This is exemplified probably the most by Germany. It had a policy called Energiewende, which was a dramatic failure. It was a dramatic failure because the whole thing about renewable energy is that, at times, it was producing only about 2% of the electricity required in Germany, and the rest was coming from fossil fuels, primarily coal, a tiny bit of nuclear and a lot of gas. It was doubling down on gas, and 80% of it was going to come from the Nord Stream pipelines from Russia. Of course, when the war happened, that supply disappeared.

So, cap in hand, Germany comes to Canada this past summer and asks Canada to fill its needs. What did our Prime Minister say? He said there was no business case for natural gas delivery from Canada. Well, he was immediately contradicted by every business leader in Canada. The end result, of course, is that Germany goes and buys its long-term natural gas from Qatar, which is one of the world leaders in this and one of the countries that have actually outpaced Canada in developing this energy source greener than coal. I will note that many countries are going back to coal now, which is much more punishing to the environment than natural gas.

Japan arrived here, just last month, and said, “Can you please get us some more natural gas, because we need it in our energy mix? We're trying to decarbonize with more natural gas.” It was the same answer from this country's Prime Minister: “We cannot help you.” Well, that is an embarrassment.

Our allies are asking for our help to deal with their energy insecurity, and we Canadians are ignoring them because the government will not accept the reality. It interrupts the government's domestic agenda to shed energy-intensive jobs, not just oil and gas, but fertilizer, agriculture, steel, cement, mining and materials, and manufacturing. These are all being done offshore now. We are pushing them offshore because of bad economic policies in this country. We are failing Canadians. The end result is clear: We are going to fail them further.

Will somebody on the government side of the House, and I do not know who it is at this point in time, stand up and address what the real answer is, and please be transparent with Canadians about the cost that is being thrust upon them as they lose their jobs?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a brief moment to wish my wife Ravi and my two daughters Nova and Solar a very happy Valentine's Day.

As a Valentine's Day gift to my friend from Calgary Centre, I have prepared a record of speeches I have given on the subject of global inflation and carbon pricing in the last five months. Starting in 2022, we have September 20, September 27, October 25 and 26, November 14, November 29 and December 5. I would also reference January 31, which was just over two weeks ago. If he is interested in reviewing those 16 speeches, I would be happy to answer any further questions he might have.

I also think it is important for my friend's constituents to know that even though his Conservative Party refused to pass a resolution acknowledging that climate change is real, he in fact campaigned for a price on pollution just in the last election. Unlike our government's plan, which is revenue-neutral, fights climate change and makes life more affordable for eight out of 10 Canadian families, his plan actually cost more, did less and forced all Canadians to adopt a government-controlled bank account where his Conservative Party would dictate what they could or could not spend their money on. I know that all sounds outrageous, but it is also very real and I encourage all residents of Calgary Centre to look it up.

Inflation is also real and it is important that we take action to reduce it. My friend probably wants us to think that the main cause is our revenue-neutral price on pollution, but that does not really pass the smell test.

In British Columbia, we have had a price on pollution since 2008. It has been provincially administered. Where was the record inflation in 2009 to 2020, etc.? In fact, if we look at B.C. generally, we were not only the first province to implement a price on pollution, we had the fastest-growing economy in the country at the same time. Part of that story is that clean-tech companies are disproportionately located in British Columbia. This has created thousands of good, high-paying, sustainable jobs and generates billions of dollars in annual revenue. I think those same sustainable jobs can grow just as quickly in Alberta as well.

In 2019, more than three years ago, the price on pollution added 9¢ to a litre of gas in British Columbia. Today it is 11¢. That is an increase of 2¢ per litre over the last three years. Of course, gas prices have surged more than a dollar per litre at the same time. My friend wants us to believe that increase is tied to pricing pollution, but he ignores 98% of the real problem. He ignores the effects of the pandemic and Putin's illegal war in Ukraine.

I understand the desire of Conservatives to ignore what is happening in the world of global inflation, but the truth is that Canada's inflation rate is 6.3%, which is lower than the U.S., Europe and the OECD countries. It is still too high of course. That is why we are putting in place programs that help make life more affordable for Canadians. Our affordability program has already provided supports to seniors, students and families who need it the most. Sadly, Conservatives are trying to take those supports away. In fact, they are putting pressure on the government to take pension money away from seniors, to take child care away from parents, to take the CBC away from Canadians and to take dental care away from poor children under the age of 12.

The problem with ignoring the facts or making improper assumptions is that it usually forces us to make bad policy decisions. I suspect that is what is happening within the caucus of the official opposition and the reason why contemporary Conservative policy is so reckless.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the narrative, although I do not think there was a response at all to my question.

In fact, with respect to the narrative about the Parliamentary Budget Office and how much Canadians are paying, I think he should read that report, because it shows that in my province alone the net fiscal economic effects are over $2,000 on average per family. I encourage him to read it, and to actually read it on the floor of the House of Commons, but I know he will not do that.

I know the narrative here. It is that we are doing better, that we are charging Canadians more, that they are paying more for everything, but that we should not worry about it because it is not the government's fault, but the fault lies somewhere else in the world.

We are moving jobs offshore consistently in this country. The reality that the current government seems to try to skid over here is that carbon taxes, if applied on their own, are designed to be inflationary. They make everything cost more. That is their effect. If the member would like to address how this is the reality versus what the intended outcome is, I would be happy to hear it, but right now the end is meeting exactly what it is supposed to be doing.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians can count on our government to continue supporting those who need it the most while carefully managing our finances and protecting our environment. We have a responsible fiscal plan, the lowest net debt and deficit in the G7, and an AAA credit rating. We have created more than 800,000 jobs since the pandemic.

As we prepare for the federal budget, Canadians can rest assured that we will continue to position Canada for success while ensuring that our most vulnerable get the support they need and keeping our finances on a sustainable, long-term fiscal track.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to re-address a question that I asked last week in the House on Afghans and Afghan interpreters, those Afghans who helped Canada during our mission there, and what the current Liberal government is doing to help them out.

In particular, I was asking on behalf of Abdullah, who has actually been here, about what they were doing to help his family, who were approved eight months or so ago to come to Canada, yet nothing has happened.

His brother is now feared missing and presumed dead. My question to the government then was as follows: How many more Afghans such as Abdullah's brother need to die before the government will take urgent action?

I want to emphasize why this is so important. I spent over a year of my life in Afghanistan. I have seen, first-hand, the horrific actions of the Taliban. I apologize, in advance, to anybody listening about some of the graphic details I am going to share, such as a father and son beheaded and hung because they helped the local Afghan police during my time there in 2007, and young girls with acid thrown in their face because they dared go to school.

We have seen now, since the Taliban has retaken the country, that it is not allowing women and girls to go to university and, just in the last couple of months, any school at all. It has taken away those rights. It is persecuting religious minorities, ethnic minorities, women, 2SLGBTQ+ groups and, in particular, it is targeting women members of parliament from the former Afghanistan government, former Afghan judges and those Afghans who chose to help us help them during our decade-plus in that country.

Why is this so important? If we are unwilling, as a nation, to help these Afghans, or those from any country we travel to and where we depend upon them to achieve our missions, whether it be military, whether it be diplomatic or whether it be Canadian NGOs working in those nations, and then we leave them behind when things go sideways, that speaks to who we are as a nation and what we think of those people we are supposedly trying to help.

I will predict what I am going to hear from the parliamentary secretary here shortly. She will talk about how they have accepted 27,000 Afghans here into Canada. My question is this: Out of the 27,000, how many of them were already outside of Afghanistan, already in relative safety? I am not saying that we should not be helping them out, those who were able to flee the country, but my primary concern is about those Afghans still in Afghanistan.

We are going to hear about the challenges, logistical and security challenges. I will continue to call BS on that. I talk on a daily basis, or a weekly basis, with former colleagues and NGOs that are moving Afghans and Ukrainians out of these respective countries, out of war zones, and they can get it done very, very quickly.

I will close with two simple questions. How many more Afghans need to die before the government takes action? When can Parliament expect an update from the government on the 37 recommendations, and the progress that the Liberal government has made them, that came out of the Special Committee on Afghanistan?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his passion and service. He is very engaged and, as I understand, has a very personal commitment to vulnerable Afghans. We do not always align in our ideology, but I think it is important for Canadians everywhere to see that when it comes to unwavering support for Afghanistan, we are on the same side.

Canada's commitment to Afghanistan represents one of the most difficult and the largest resettlement initiatives in Canadian history. We are steadfast in our promise to support those who served alongside Canada during the military operation in Afghanistan, as well as those who were working with our diplomatic missions. I am proud that Canada has one of the largest Afghan resettlement programs in the world and was among the first countries in the world to launch a special humanitarian resettlement program for vulnerable Afghans, including women leaders, human rights defenders, persecuted and religious minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ individuals and journalists.

I can confidently tell this House that we are exploring all avenues to support their safe passage and are maximizing every opportunity to help Afghans leave Afghanistan and travel onward to Canada. A key challenge is that many Afghans who are still in need of protection remain in Afghanistan, and movement out of the country by air or land continues to be very difficult and dangerous. As all members here well know, the Government of Canada has no military or diplomatic presence in Afghanistan.

Afghans seeking to leave Afghanistan face multiple challenges, including the Taliban exit requirements, notably a passport. They must also navigate third country entry and exit requirements.

We are doing everything we can to help vulnerable Afghans get to safety as quickly as possible. IRCC has added more employees and resources in our mission abroad, including in Islamabad. IRCC has also mobilized its global network, and applications continue to be processed day and night on a priority basis through our integrated network of visa officers across the globe. Furthermore, IRCC has adopted a facilitative approach to expedite certain processes given the unique circumstances in Afghanistan.

We are working with a wide range of partners, including regional and like-minded governments, NGOs and referral organizations, to secure safe passage for Afghans who are eligible for one of Canada's immigration programs. With the help of these trusted partners, we are enabling the movement of Afghans in neighbouring countries, where we have bolstered biometrics collection and medical and security screening capacity.

I just want to point out that we have had 22 flights from Pakistan and 16 from Tajikistan so far. As the member alluded to, even with all of these difficulties, more than 28,000 Afghans can now call Canada home. We are proud of what we have accomplished, but we also know that there is more to do.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary did not address my questions.

My first question was, when can we expect the Afghans still stuck in Afghanistan to get here? There were lots of excuses and lots of reasons why there are challenges. Again, I talked to the people on the ground directly involved with moving these Afghans. It is the bureaucracy. It is the lack of paperwork. We can move people within days if we just get the bureaucracy and paperwork resolved.

I will go back to the other question I asked. I am looking for an update on when this House of Commons can expect a progress report on the 37 recommendations made by the Special Committee on Afghanistan to the government.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, again I want to thank the hon. member for his service to Canada. I represent the community of Orléans, where we have a lot of active military members and veterans. It is always extraordinary for me to be a part of that.

As I have said on a few occasions, if it was a matter of will, there would be 40,000 Afghans here in Canada. The current situation in Afghanistan is complex, and the challenges are extraordinary. We are constantly navigating an evolving situation with the government, and we have no military or diplomatic presence on the ground.

We continue to explore all avenues to support the safe movement of Canada-bound Afghans out of Afghanistan to a third country and to maximize every opportunity to help them travel. I want to be clear. This effort is ongoing, and we are using all options at our disposal.

Foreign Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, four and a half years ago, I put forward a motion in this House calling on the Government of Canada to list the IRGC, the Iranian government's weapon of terror against its own people and people throughout the world, as a terrorist organization within the Criminal Code. That motion passed this House. All Conservatives and every present member of the Liberal caucus, including the Prime Minister, voted in favour of that motion.

The government voted four and a half years ago, nearly five years ago, to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. At the time, in 2018, the case was already clear that this organization existed for the purpose of terrorizing its own population and those throughout the region and around the world, and of asserting its control over those people by any possible means.

Since 2018, we have had the shooting down of flight PS752 and the killing of dozens of Canadians and many more people with connections to Canada. We have had the emergence of the Woman Life Freedom movement and the arbitrary execution of protesters by the Iranian regime. For most of that period, the Canadian government did not even impose sanctions against that regime. It merely trumpeted the continuation of restrictions that were put in place by Conservatives.

Since the issue of the violence being inflicted by the Iranian regime has gotten more public attention, since the opposition has been pushing the government aggressively under the leadership of the member for Carleton in the last six months, the government has imposed some additional sanctions. It is too little, too late, though, and the government persists in refusing to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. It is particularly ironic, because the Deputy Prime Minister has called it a terrorist organization.

We have a member of the government saying she recognizes the IRGC is a terrorist organization, but then refusing to list it as a terrorist organization in the Criminal Code. It does not make any sense. She said, in that press conference, that they recognize that the IRGC is a terrorist organization, so they were going to list it in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but not in the Criminal Code.

I keep asking this question. I have been asking this question persistently for the last five years. If the government voted for this and if the government is now saying this is a terrorist organization, why can it not use the Criminal Code to list it as a terrorist organization?

This is important, because listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization would decisively shut down the operations of that organization in Canada. The government has responded, and will no doubt respond again, that it has listed specific individuals within these organizations. However, when we list specific individuals within the organization, then other people who are part of that same organization, or new people who end up taking on the same positions others previously held, are still able to operate. We would still have the IRGC active here in Canada, intimidating and threatening Canadians.

I spoke to someone. A member of their family was killed when flight PS752 was shot down by the IRGC, and this individual has faced threats here on Canadian soil from the IRGC. We have evidence of violence being planned against Canadians by the IRGC, yet the government refuses to list it.

Why, after voting for this, and after five years, has the government still refused to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to holding Iran accountable for its shameless disregard for human rights and the regime's support for terrorism.

I would like to emphasize the robust measures that Canada has in place against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. These measures were undertaken in response to recent incidents, as well as Iran's long-term systemic human rights violations and ongoing behaviour that destabilizes regional security.

Canada has designated the Islamic Republic of Iran under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, for the regime's engagement in terrorism and continuous and gross human rights violations. As a result, tens of thousands of prominent Iranian government officials, including IRGC senior officials, are now permanently inadmissible to Canada. In addition to being banned from entering Canada, current and former senior officials who are presently in the country may be investigated and deported.

Furthermore, Canada has imposed vigorous sanctions against the Iranian regime and its leadership under the Special Economic Measures Act, which explicitly targets the IRGC and several sub-organizations. These measures ensure that all of designated individuals' assets in Canada are effectively frozen.

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

Yesterday, the House unanimously voted to send Bill S-8 to committee, and I trust that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development will review this bill expeditiously.

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

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 listed the IRGC Qods Force as a terrorist entity since 2012. It is a group recognized as responsible for terrorist operations and providing arms, funding and training to other terrorist groups.

The Government of Canada has also listed terrorist entities that have benefited from Qods Force patronage, including Hizballah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, and three Iran-backed regional militias that were added to the Criminal Code in 2019.

We are committed to holding the Iranian regime accountable for their crimes, human rights violations and threats against regional peace and security.

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

Madam Speaker, there are no surprises in that non-answer, unfortunately.

The parliamentary secretary, ironically, cites a number of instances of groups that were listed by the previous Conservative government, and then expects to be congratulated, I suppose, for the fact that the government has allowed these terrorist organizations listed by Conservatives to remain on the list, but has not listed additional organizations.

A while back the House passed a motion on the listing of the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization, and the government got that done within two months, yet it has been five years, and the parliamentary secretary will not list the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

She cites various individuals. Again, as I already pointed out, when individuals are sanctioned and not the organization, the organization is allowed to continue to operate here in Canada. The parliamentary secretary will not answer the basic question. Why is the government intent on allowing the IRGC to continue their operations in Canada?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct something the hon. member said. The government did not list the Proud Boys. It was the security agencies that actually listed the Proud Boys as a terrorist entity.

Listings under the Criminal Code provide the legal and institutional framework to implement measures to freeze and forfeit terrorist property, and to help investigate and potentially prosecute someone for certain offences. Listing is just one instrument in Canada's international and domestic counter terrorism strategy tool box for ensuring the safety of Canadians.

Canadians can have confidence in the continuing efforts of the government to further constrain the actions of Iran that threaten public safety and violate basic human rights.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.)