House of Commons Hansard #212 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sanctions.

Topics

Immigration and Refugee ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot for that excellent summary of Bill S-8 and what it means to Canada, how it falls short and how the government falls short in meeting the challenges of the geopolitical landscape as it is playing out around the world. As the member mentioned, this is simply some amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The bill addresses the issue of sanctions. It would make sure that individuals who have been sanctioned and should not be admissible to Canada do not actually make it into Canada.

The bill is most specifically a response to what happened in Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal and immoral. It has devastated a country that was simply looking for peace. As someone who has family roots that are at least in part vested in Ukraine, I, like so many Canadians, was exceedingly angry at what we saw Vladimir Putin do to a country that was struggling to develop the prosperity and security it deserves. Now, with the actions that Russia has taken in Ukraine, the whole global geopolitical and geosecurity environment has been turned on its head. The bill before us purports to tighten Canada's sanctions regime to ensure that no one implicated in illegal foreign acts of aggression and illegal foreign acts of war could enter Canada.

However, right off the bat, I have two comments to make. First, there is no indication right now that foreigners who are inadmissible to Canada are getting into Canada. Therefore, it appears that our current sanctions regime is working. I do understand efforts to be proactive and plug gaps that might exist. That is the first point that I will make. There is no indication that foreigners who are inadmissible to Canada are getting into Canada.

Second, it is troubling that this bill emanates not from the House, but from the Senate, which, as members know, is unelected. One would expect that the Liberal government, if it considered our national security and global security to be that important, would table that bill here in the House first and then let it go to the other place for further, sober second thought.

Since the bill intends to strengthen our ability to prevent persons who have been sanctioned from actually entering Canada, it does so first by establishing a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on those very sanctions. That is the first part of it. The second part of the bill proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility to include not only sanctions that are imposed on a foreign country, but also sanctions that are imposed on a foreign entity or organization, or a foreign person, because we want to capture everybody who would be implicated in foreign acts of aggression.

Third, the bill would expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions that are made in section 4 of SEMA, or the Special Economic Measures Act. Finally, the bill would amend the regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety would have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on those very sanctions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

That may all sound very complicated, but the bottom line is this: All this bill does is purport to plug existing gaps. I would suggest to the government, rather than being in reactive mode, why is it not proactive in addressing the challenges that Canada faces on the security front?

For example, why is the government not actively addressing the issue of foreign interference in our elections? Why is it not actively addressing the issue of intellectual property theft by the regime in Beijing? Why is it not addressing those individuals who were implicated in the acts of terrorism and intolerance in the country of Iran, who have now found a safe haven in our country and are seen walking the streets of our cities such as Toronto? Why will it not be proactive in addressing geopolitical security issues, rather than always responding in a reactive way and missing the boat?

We will be supporting this legislation, but it does not reflect a thoughtful, proactive approach to the very real challenges that face Canada today.

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violence against pregnant women), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, in the first hour of debate on Bill C-311, the violence against pregnant women act, there was a lot of push-back by the Liberals and the NDP on issues not in the bill. The lack of care and rigour in this debate should be distressing to Canadians who are paying attention at home.

It is abundantly clear that this legislation is about one thing, which is protecting vulnerable women through a Criminal Code amendment. It is very important that this debate centres on what is before us. We are looking to consistency in sentencing across the country as an objective so that pregnancy, as an aggravating factor, is no longer discretionary but mandatory to consider.

I will read the bill in its entirety into the record so there is clarity for all those following the debate.

Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violence against pregnant women), states, beginning with the preamble:

Whereas Parliament wishes to denounce and deter violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing;

Now, therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

The short title states, “This Act may be cited as the Violence Against Pregnant Women Act.”

Under “Criminal Code” it states:

Paragraph 718.‍2(a) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.‍1):

(ii.‍2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant,

(ii.‍3) evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim,

That is it. There is a preamble, a short title, and brief amendments to beef up sentencing if a violent crime is committed against a pregnant woman. This is common-sense legislation that protects women who choose to carry their baby to term.

Nowhere in this legislation is there any reference to the unborn or reproductive issues. Making this debate about something other than protecting women is unfair and uncaring. This is where their fake feminism is exposed.

Just last week, it was reported that Paul Bernardo was transferred to a medium security prison. Conservatives brought forward a unanimous consent motion calling for an immediate return of this brutal serial rapist and killer to a maximum security prison. We were shouted down by the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands, and that made the intentions of the Liberals clear. They have decided to defend one of the most disgusting men in Canadian history, rather than his female victims and their families. This is misogyny.

When the Liberals vote against Bill C-311, they will be voting against women and against choice. They will once again be protecting violent men, not vulnerable women. Conservatives are on the side of women and victims.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member attributed something that I apparently did yesterday to me. I certainly did not do that. The member might want to reflect on that.

The next time, before she makes accusations, she might want to know what she is talking about.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

That is descending into a fair amount of debate.

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock is rising on the same point of order.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when the unanimous consent motion was called. The member said “no”. I rarely make a mistake about what the member does.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, it was not me who said “no”. This member should apologize, because she is lying right now.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member just called me a liar in this House, and then walked out. Now he is back.

That is not only unparliamentary language. We can all check Hansard and see what happened. He—

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Check Hansard then before you speak next time.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have the floor; that this member is shouting over me when I have the floor is also unparliamentary. He is a disgrace.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for saying that the member was lying. What the member is saying is not true.

She should check Hansard before she makes that accusation in this House, because what she is saying is simply and categorically false.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, that member just turned to me, made a face and gave the finger to me. I do not even know how you categorize that in the House of Commons.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

June 13th, 2023 / 5:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

To all of us.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, he did it to all of us and specifically to me. That member should be sanctioned in the strongest possible terms. He should be thrown out of the House.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

I am going to take a break for a second here, and I am going to consult. I was just consulting with the table officers, so I did not see what happened. What I am going to do is review the videotapes, because cameras are on all the time. We will review those cameras. We will go in back and look at it.

I will remind people that we are in the House of Commons, and we should respect each other at all times, even though we disagree, vehemently sometimes, on issues that are before us. To accuse and flip the bird or give the finger is probably something that should not be seen in this House at any time.

I am going to go to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, and then I will go back to the hon. Conservative whip.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that I was coming into the Chamber right at that moment. I can tell you that I did see the member for Kingston and the Islands make an objectionable sign with his finger to the opposition.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Mr. Speaker, I clearly saw the member for Kingston and the Islands give the finger, which is a symbol for a very specific phrase. Again, I would agree with my colleague that an apology is in order.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

All right, since I cannot ask someone who might not be here to do something, I will go back and review it—

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

An hon. member

He is here.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

How about we go back to the item that we are supposed to be dealing with? We are going to go back and look at the video. We will take into consideration the things that we heard. Then we will come up with a response as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Brampton South.

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-311, which was introduced by the Conservative member for Yorkton—Melville.

I am proud to stand with my NDP and Bloc colleagues and with Canadian women across our great country—

Violence Against Pregnant Women ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

I apologize. Before we really get started, I know the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wants to stand on something.