Debates of April 15th, 2024

Justice and Human Rights

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I would ask the hon. member to be very prudent with his choice of words, please. I would be very grateful if the member could take that word back.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite asked a very good question about why I am so exercised on this particular issue. Earlier today, the member posed that question to me while introducing her remarks on Bill C-50. Some members of the House, including the member who posed that question to me just now, came to the House believing that this was what we were going to be talking about today. All one needs to do is listen to her speech a couple of hours back.

Members of the House knew full well what we were going to be debating today. That is why I talked about this being a charade and about the games being played by Conservative Party members. What they have really done is prevent, once again, debate on government legislation, the very same piece of legislation that the member opposite, who is heckling me, made an amendment to. Why? It is because they want to filibuster the legislation. That is the real motivation behind the motion today.

Members have stood up to say it is such an important issue. If it is so important, why did they not want to introduce an emergency debate on the issue?

[An hon. member]

Because it's not an emergency; it's just a distraction.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as one of my colleagues said, it is really and truly not an emergency from the Conservatives' perspective, but rather it is a distraction. It is to take us away from the debate on the amendment that the Conservatives put forward on government legislation. Remember that this is the same bill, Bill C-50, that we voted on for hours and hours last week. It is the same bill for which the critic who is responsible for it utilized artificial intelligence to generate over 20,000 amendments. Let the games continue. That is what we are witnessing from across the way.

Why do I get so exercised about it? It is because I, unlike Conservatives, who choose to make games of serious issues of this nature, believe that it is an important issue. I only wish Conservative Party members would be more genuine in their comments on the issue. What do I mean by that? Why did they not bring in an emergency debate if they really felt that it was such an emergency? How many questions did they ask on the issue? By my count, it was one or two.

Allow me to provide this quote, if I may, of the minister's response to a Conservative member in question period. Here is what the minister indicated earlier today: “We have said many times in the House that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has repeated that.”

That is a pretty strong statement. I believe that if we were to canvass the House, the entire House would agree with that particular statement. He continued, “We have taken a series of severe measures to restrict members of the regime, including the revolutionary guard corps, from coming to Canada. With respect to listing a terrorist entity, it is national security agencies”, and I am going to pause there. Imagine a national government that wants to allow the professionals, the people who have their feet on the ground, to do what it is they are charged to do and to bring back recommendations and thoughts on the process to the government.

When they say six years, I say balderdash. They know nothing about what they are actually talking about. They want to out-trump Trump, quite frankly. Shame on them for the poor attitude that they display, day in and day out, on very important issues.

The minister responded that it is the national security agencies that do these reviews, not the Conservative Party of Canada; amen to that. From time to time, they provide advice to the government. Obviously all options are on the table. I have asked the national security community to provide the government with that advice quickly.

The Conservative Party, as I have said, is all agitated. I would suggest that a lot of that comes out of drama school. At the end of the day, the Conservatives are agitated and ask why the government has not taken action. When did the European Union come to the table on the issue? I believe it was just last year.

[An hon. member]

Who cares? Just focus on Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member says “Who cares?” However, she likes to compare Canada's response to responses of other countries.

The Conservative Party tries to fit everything through a lens that has only one purpose. That is to play the role of a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons, to prevent important legislation from passing that would make a difference for Canadians.

Today in question period, the Conservatives stood up and asked a couple of questions about our farmers. They talked about giving our farmers a break. I should tell members that, when they play the types of games they are playing today, they should take a look at what is happening with the fall economic statement inside the committee.

Today the Conservatives are talking about a terrorist organization; they want more recognition from the government to that effect. The government is saying that it is going to look to its professionals, the individual security agencies that Canada has and those individuals who bring a great deal of experience to the table.

What else does the Conservative Party do, in terms of disrupting the House? It does not want to pass the fall economic statement, so it cries about the farmers and yet filibusters. If I were a gambling man, which I am not, I would suggest that even on the fall economic statement, the Conservatives probably brought in concurrence reports. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong on that. The point is that this particular bill is still in committee, being filibustered. That bill would actually double the top-up for the rebate for rural communities. Duh, that helps the farmers.

Again, at the end of the day, these are the types of things that the Conservatives exercise, day in and day out, in order to prevent legislative and budgetary measures from being passed through the House of Commons. Here they have come to a report, which I have made reference to. I could talk about some very specific points, in terms of recommendations, and I will go to that. However, before I do, I want to remind members across the way that, at the end of the day, there are many different opportunities for the Conservatives, if they genuinely believe this is something they really and truly want to talk about. They chose not to do that.

I already referred to the emergency debate. For those who might be following this debate, an emergency debate would have taken place had the Conservatives taken the opportunity to stand in their place and articulate why the House of Commons should be designating a block of time in order to have an emergency debate on the issue. They could have done that instead of moving this particular motion for concurrence.

The problem is that, even if the Speaker had agreed to the emergency debate, it would have been deferred by a few hours. The Conservatives had absolutely no intention of bringing in an emergency debate. It is not as though the report and the recommendations are what they really want to talk about. However, that is one thing they could have done.

We know the official opposition has other opportunities to raise matters through opposition days. It has had 20-plus opposition days. It is important to look at everything its members have talked about. Today we are talking about the IRGC, a report and the timing of it. Why would they not bring this up in an opposition day? In an opposition day, they can be very specific, list every concern they have and have an entire day of debate on the issue. At the end of that debate, an actual vote takes place. If the Conservative Party members were genuinely concerned about the IRGC, why would they not have done it that way?

Instead, Conservatives have had the last 18 days or 20 days in row to talk about misleading information with respect to the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax and how they are going to fool Canadians with their bumper sticker slogans. This is what they have been debating, and this is the sad reality.

We have a very serious issue here that affects so many people; it affects them directly here in Canada, as well as abroad, both directly and indirectly. If Conservatives took the issue as seriously as they say they do, I would suggest that, at the very least, they could have had further dialogue or another opposition day designated to talk about it and define the points they really wanted to make.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran is a great concern for all of us. I appreciate when there are opportunities, in the form of questions during question period, for members of whatever political party to raise important issues. I also would suggest that they take a look at the responses they are given to those questions. It needs to be put in the context of what is happening around the world and what other allied countries might be doing.

I am very much aware of what took place over the weekend. I thought it was great we actually had the leaders of the G7 come out with a joint statement on the issue. If I had the time, I would read the entire statement that they released. These were things they shared in common.

Unlike the imagery the Conservative Party tries to portray, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been very effective at working with our allied nations, reflecting on Canadian values and taking them onto the international scene. There is absolutely no doubt, from my perspective, that this is the best way to deal with the issue at hand.

There is a great deal of media attention about what has taken place since October 7, what took place over the weekend and everything in between. I would like to think a vast majority of members, if not all, are following what is taking place in the Middle East very closely, because it has an impact on the communities we all represent.

For me, it is about Canadian values. It is about working with allied, like-minded countries and putting Canada in a position we can all, ultimately, feel comfortable with going forward. I am confident in the position we have actually taken.

In the comments from across the way, there was reference to flight 752, the impact that had on Canadians and the people who died. I have talked to individuals one-on-one and listened to the problems and issues that have been surrounding it. I am very much a big fan of Ralph Goodale, and I appreciate a lot of the fine work he has done, in terms of trying to help Canada get over that particular issue in a way in which we ensure that there is a higher sense of justice.

As do all members of the House, I see the IRGC and what is taking place as something that is completely unacceptable. At the end of the day, I believe that the Conservatives have used this issue as a part of the game of filibustering and preventing government legislation and budgetary issues from being debated. That is wrong. There is the problem.

The debate itself would have been a whole lot better, and the gamesmanship would have been put to the side, if this had taken the form of an opposition motion. Now the Conservatives are using what has taken place over the weekend for that sense of emergency. Having said that, they had the opportunity to do that, too. They intentionally chose not to.

That is the party that is trying to turn this into a game and then ramp up the emotions that Canadians are feeling. There is a lot of anxiety in our communities, and the Conservatives are contributing to it. They are a part of the problem, and that is what I see taking place today.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the problem is the Liberal government, which has dragged its feet for six long years. It has been four years since the IRGC shot down PS752, murdering 55 Canadians and 35 permanent residents in what the Ontario Superior Court has determined to be a terrorist attack. The families of PS752 victims have been pleading with the Liberals; for four years, their pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

The member's government, under the leadership of his Minister of Foreign Affairs, has literally trashed decades of Canadian foreign policy to buy out the anti-Israel NDP by supporting a motion that calls for an arms embargo on Israel; in other words, it strips Israel of its right to defend itself. Does the member support Israel's right to defend itself from attacks by Hamas and the IRGC? How does he square that with what his government has done?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is posing two questions. The first is in regard to the timing issue, saying that we should have done this six years ago. That is what the Conservative Party is implying in the question, as the member nods his head, acknowledging that what I am saying is true. To that, I say that I am in no hurry to out-Trump Donald Trump, when he made the announcement in 2019, which is under six years ago. Is that the type of attitude we are going to see coming from the Conservative Party? The member continues to nod his head, saying “yes”.

I disagree. I do not think we should be dictated to by Donald Trump or individuals even further to the right than the MAGA Conservatives we see today.

In regard to the second question, he asks about Israel. I said in my comments that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has been working diligently with our allied countries, has developed and put together a consensus, as we continue to move forward, based on Canadian values, and I fully—

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

I have to give other members the opportunity to ask questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, one of the problems with the motion to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity is the implementation of this measure. We know that the government generally has a hard time implementing its own proposals. Look at the sanctions. Sanctions against Iran were announced as early as 2022-23. As we have seen with sanctions relating to Ukraine, the government is completely incapable of following through with what is happening.

When the government announces something, would it not be a good first step for it to at least implement it? Maybe we would not always want to bring more things forward if the government followed through every time. Would it not be the first thing for the government to do, on its own, when it decides to impose sanctions against a regime, for example, to ensure that those sanctions are truly implemented?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do believe that there are some sanctions that are already in place. I want to re-emphasize that the minister responsible indicated very clearly to the House just an hour or so ago that we have security agencies that are charged with the responsibility of doing the work that is necessary in order to provide the type of quality advice that Canadians expect of our security agencies. It would be pre-emptive to do something before that is actually provided. I appreciate the question and look forward, as no doubt the member opposite does, to what ultimately is decided on this.

I would go back to the European Union. From what I understand, it was not until maybe the summer of last year that the E.U. ultimately recognized the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have an incredible community of Iranian Canadians in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, so I want to first acknowledge all of those in my community. I think of Shirin, particularly, who is the owner of The Bees Knees in Nanaimo, who contributes in so many ways.

My question for the member is specifically around the point of designating the IRGC as a terrorist entity now. Many Iranian Canadians are speaking to me about the importance of holding to account those who are participating in human rights violations and committing terrorism, and of moving this forward.

Can the member also share his thoughts around the importance of, while holding terrorism to account, also considering those who are conscripted into the IRGC and how that plays into the decisions being made, moving forward, so that those who are forced into the IRGC are not being held to the same degree of responsibility as those who are voluntarily participating in terrorism?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and it is important. Again, the minister himself indicated earlier today, during question period, that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. We need to be very clear on that point. The government has security agencies that do outstanding work, and we look forward to whatever ultimately comes of that work.

My concern, more to the member's question, is the anxiety that is in our communities. There is a considerable amount of anxiety there from a number of different communities, let alone among most Canadians who have been following the news in any significant way. I do not appreciate that when we have that kind of anxiety in our communities, we get an opposition party choosing to make a game of it. It actually adds to the anxiety, and that does a disservice to Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to build upon some of the questions that have been asked, because all members in this place recognize that Hamas is a terrorist entity; all members have condemned the actions of Hamas, and all members agree that Israel has the right to defend itself. I too want to really commend the people within my communities, especially those of Iranian descent, who have taken the time to speak with me as their member of Parliament.

Constituents within the riding of Waterloo also came together to draft a petition. They had members within the community and surrounding area sign it, and I was able to present that petition on their behalf, because we do recognize the horrid situation in which Mahsa Amini was killed and the downing of flight PS752. It was absolutely horrible to find out what took place, and Canada was right there to make sure that for citizens and permanent residents on that plane, justice was served. We continue to take action on that.

I would like to hear from the member. When it comes to this file and the importance of doing the work that we need to do, would the approach be to play, in a sense, dog-whistle politics with it, or should we recognize the harm that is being caused and find a way forward so that we can actually represent the diversity of Canadians in this country? What kind of role does the government—

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

I need to give the hon. parliamentary secretary a few seconds to answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it goes to my earlier comment that the Conservative Party had an option. It did not have to use a concurrence motion. There are many different ways it could have dealt with this. I never even talked about the possibility of a take-note debate. Did Conservatives go to the Speaker and say they wanted an emergency debate? Have they had a caucus discussion to see if they would use it as an opposition day motion? Did they even approach the government in any fashion, saying they would like a take-note debate?

There are many different options, but, sadly, Conservatives chose to debate concurrence in a committee report, which I believe tells me and should tell Canadians that, ultimately, it is more of a game than it is an issue, and that is sad.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is really worth my time to respond to anything that the member for Winnipeg North said, but I do want to respond to some of the comments about conscription.

A couple of members asked an interesting question about how the listing of the IRGC impacts those who have been conscripted into it. Rather than just talking about the problem, Conservatives have actually put the solution to this problem in Bill C-350, and I invite members to read it. We proposed an amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which would say that a person is deemed not to have been a member of an organization if certain conditions are met: if they were required to fulfill a mandatory service period within the organization, if they did not commit atrocities while they were part of the organization and if they did not extend their stay with that organization.

We have not just talked about the problem and said, “This is unsolvable, so we are not going to do it.” Conservatives have recognized the issue and proposed an amendment in Bill C-350 that would solve the conscription problem. Therefore, I encourage members who are serious about wanting to do this to support Bill C-350 and get it through second reading, so it can be studied and further refined at committee and we could actually get this done.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would reinforce my previous answer, that I believe the Conservative Party has lost sight of the genuine issue itself by choosing to use concurrence in a committee report or making a game of this in trying to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

Like many other matters that are brought before the House, what our Conservative colleagues are proposing today is something that I think is very important. It will certainly have serious consequences. We know that inclusion on the list of terrorist organizations means that Iranian citizens and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will no longer be allowed on Canadian soil. However, even if we think that perpetrators of terrorism must be prohibited from staying in the country or must at least be controlled, imprisoned or properly sanctioned, the fact remains that, according to the statistics that we have, 50% or more of IRGC soldiers are likely honest citizens who have been conscripted or forced to serve in the military. As a result, the decision that we are about to make could have a major impact on Iranians, regardless of whether people are guilty of any kind of terrorist, criminal or other act.

That said, even if we do not have the expertise or enough of the full story to make such a important decision, the fact remains that the world is changing and we are looking at a major situation to which Canada must respond. We know that in the late 1950s, Iran even developed a civil nuclear program with the help of the United States. At that time, the Iranian state was seen as an ally or friendly to the west. Things changed over time. In 1979, the infamous Islamic revolution happened, and that led to a radical change in the way Iranians live and in their position on western society. We had to consider that. Members will recall that in January 2002, in the wake of the attacks on the United States, President George W. Bush declared the existence of what was known at the time as the axis of evil, which included Iran. So there was a change. Although in the 1950s Iran was an ally, a friendly country, things changed in 1979 with the Islamic revolution. I will refrain from calling it an enemy, but at the turn of the century, Iran became hostile to the west. The situation is deteriorating as the years go by.

That bring us to this weekend, with the notorious drone and ballistic missile attacks. We understand, or at least wonder about Iran's real intentions. Apparently, these missiles were largely destroyed at or near take-off. It was not as devastating an attack as some might have feared but, nevertheless, Iran launched an attack and, as we know, it is working on nuclear energies. Agreements have been signed. We know that there are no nuclear weapons in Iran, and Iran's nuclear power was regulated in 2015 or thereabouts. However, there are still questions. Hostile intentions are being demonstrated by a state that is a serious threat to Canada's allies in Europe and, in many ways, Canada itself.

What happens next? I admit that it is not an easy choice, but I do not think we can just stand by. We have to react. As we know, the United States has taken steps to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

We know that the European Union and other countries are seriously considering this option at the moment. I think we also need to give the matter careful thought and possibly impose such sanctions. They would have to be administered very carefully, tactfully and sparingly. I trust the Canadian government to administer the situation wisely and appropriately, but I think something has to be done. We do not have time to spend a year or two considering the matter. We have to act now.

I introduced a bill on that before. The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly argued for the creation of an organized crime registry in Canada. We based our work in that regard on the registry of terrorist organizations. Our belief in the usefulness of such a registry is therefore sincere. I believe it would be even more useful for organized crime. In time, I hope to bring my friends in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and possibly in the NDP and the Green Party, and everyone in the House, around to the idea, so that we end up with what I think would be a highly appropriate tool for fighting terrorist organizations, a tool that should also allow us to fight organized crime effectively. It is important to remember that organized crime causes a lot more harm in Canada than terrorist organizations. Organized crime jeopardizes the quality of life and peace of mind of Quebeckers and Canadians on a daily basis. I believed in a registry for organized crime, and the registry of terrorist organizations was the model I used. I still believe in it.

Given that we believe in the usefulness of a registry and we think that Iran has gone down a dangerous path that could, in the short or medium term, cause major harm to Canada and, in any case, is already causing serious harm to citizens around the world, I believe that Canada should set an example. The Government of Canada needs to deal with this issue right now. In that sense, I think our Conservative colleagues are right to ask us to take a stand on this matter.

I will stop there. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a comment and ask the member a question. The first line of the report calls on the government to designate the group, called Sepâh-e Pâsdârân in Farsi, as a terrorist group. We have been trying to convince the government for six years now to designate it as a terrorist group under the Criminal Code.

Some members have asked the question about the people who have been forced to do their military service with this terrorist group. In fact, all those who work for the Quds Force are volunteers. They are soldiers who work for the Government of Tehran. It is a terrorist group that killed Kian Pirfalak, who was nine years old. Those people killed Mahsa Amini. They killed Nika Shahkarami, Sarina Esmailzadeh and Armita Garavand. Thousands of people have been sent to Iranian prisons just for defending their democratic and human rights.

Why does my colleague think that the government has been refusing for six years to add this group to our terrorist list in our Criminal Code so that its hundreds of agents, who are here in this country, can face justice?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, why has Canada dragged its feet for six years? I do not know. I suspect that I will never know.

That being said, we have taken issue many times with the Liberal government's pattern of complacency and we continue to do so. The Liberal government is complacent in carrying out its own responsibilities but overly active in interfering in provincial jurisdictions. It defies understanding. Obviously, there are government members who would rather be serving in the Quebec National Assembly or in the provincial parliaments than here in the federal Parliament. Right now, we are talking about something that clearly falls under federal jurisdiction: the fight against terrorism.

I have to agree with my colleague that we should have addressed this issue a long time ago. I, too, hope that the government will do so wisely and carefully without rushing things, but it needs to address this issue now.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member may be aware that in May, the committee on foreign affairs is bringing forward an NDP motion that the committee study the federal government's refusal to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity, the connection between people or assets in Canada and the IRGC, and paths forward to support vulnerable Iranians. I am reflecting on the importance of the people who need to be there to testify at the committee, with the increased violence against women. We know of the horrific, violent murder of Mahsa Amini as one example.

Could the member speak to the violence against women that is happening in Iran, the importance of its being included in the study and how that connects to what we are talking about today?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is right about violence against women in Iran. We all know that. We see it all the time. My other colleague was also right earlier about violence against young people, even children.

We know that these organizations are recruiting children to commit violent acts that would be completely prohibited and generally disapproved of if they happened in Canada. We have seen movies about what Iranian society was like before the Islamic revolution. We saw women who did not wear the veil and who had a life similar to that of men, that is to say they went to university and they were able to work and drive. However, since the Islamic revolution, there has been a tendency to prevent women from thriving in Iran. Not only is it appalling, but, in my opinion, it almost amounts to a crime against humanity, just like what they do to children.

Either way, we really need to crack down and take a serious look at this right away.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement; and the hon. member for Yellowhead, Carbon Pricing.

I believe that the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is riding on a point of order.