Debates of April 15th, 2024

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Justice and Human Rights

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

Madam Speaker, the debate that we are having right now is a follow-up to a debate that took place at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in December, where a motion calling for various things was adopted. I would like to read that list of things.

The motion called for the government to create “an Anti-Hate Crime Task Force to coordinate the protection of faith communities”, to remove “red tape and speed up access to the Security Infrastructure Program to protect communities at risk” and to evaluate “Canada's threat assessment in light of [the U.K.] travel advisory”, which is something that was in the news more at the time. The motion also called for the government to establish “a Foreign Influence Registry”. From what I understand, that task is being carried out under the guidance of the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. Let us hope that we will finally see, perhaps before the House recesses, the end of the tunnel on this issue, which is, unfortunately, long overdue. This would not just apply to the situation in Iran that we are discussing today, but to many other situations where, for example, foreign agents are conducting legitimate activities on our soil.

Finally, and this is what we are primarily debating today, the motion called for the government to designate “the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code and expel the estimated 700 Iranian agents operating in Canada”. Similar motions have been moved in various committees, including the committee on which I sit. The motion was brought back to the floor at the Standing Committee on National Defence and debated many times. It is still being debated today, but perhaps in a context dictated more by current events.

I understand that the Conservatives' decision to bring this motion to the floor today has to do with the attack that happened this past weekend, on the night of April 13 to 14, when several ballistic missiles and drones were fired at Israel. In this context, I would like to quote what our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, said. Coming on the heels of the attack, I think his tone was very measured. That is the tone I will use to address the House today. The leader of the Bloc Québécois said:

The Bloc Québécois and I join those in the United States, France, the entire international community and among Israel's usual allies in calling on the State of Israel to refrain from launching a counteroffensive in retaliation for Iran's attack on its territory and its facilities. Insofar as there is a troubling risk of escalation that could involve the entire region and, above all, Iran's attack was a failure, suggesting that Israel remains capable of defending its civilian population, and while reiterating that Israel has the right to defend itself and that Iran must be denounced, we believe that it is appropriate for Israel to remain on alert, but not to provoke an escalation that will only hinder the peace process.

I think that is the appropriate tone we should be using. I hope that we use the same tone in this debate as well. It breaks my heart that Israel's General Halevi said only an hour or two ago that Israel would retaliate for what happened the night of April 13 to 14. As the saying goes, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

The idea behind the Conservatives' proposal to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group is well meaning. However, as is often the case with other issues, the problem lies in the implementation, in the execution of what is being proposed. That brings to mind what my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith pointed out in her question to the member for Winnipeg North and subsequent remarks. If this is applied across the board, there is a risk that people who should not be on the list may sadly end up on it. Think of the conscripts, for example. In response to that, it was pointed out that most people currently in the IRGC volunteered to be in it. However, we do not know how this will be implemented in practice. We can think of situations in the past where Iranians were denied visas to come here simply because they had served in the military some 20 years earlier. That could happen again.

There is a possibility that we might end up targeting people who should not be targeted. Even people who should be protected could probably be caught in the net of an overly broad and insufficiently specific measure. This raises a question that needs to be studied, and that is the capacity to effectively implement this measure. So much the better if it is studied in committee in a few weeks' time. That will allow us to understand the full implications of the request, which is legitimate in substance, but potentially problematic to enforce.

It also raises a question about the resources needed to enforce these measures. Enforcement under the Criminal Code would take place on Canadian territory. We would not be targeting members of the IRGC who are still on Iranian soil. We would be targeting people who are here in Canada. The motion talks about approximately 700 people. However, considering that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has lost track of some 1.5 million refugee claimants and does not know their whereabouts or whether they are still here or have left, I wonder whether the government is actually capable of successfully implementing this measure, or whether it will ultimately be just another purely symbolic threat that does not scare anyone, since it is never enforced. The question is worth asking, given the context.

Would it not it be better to ensure that sanctions are properly implemented? The question of sanctions against Iran has also been discussed on numerous occasions in committee. Once again, I can think of two problems with sanctions. First, do sanctions not do more harm to the civilian population than to the people they are intended to target, in this case, the IRGC?

There is essential work to be done in terms of the approach that is taken. For example, we might consider sanctions that will be aimed more at the media, those that deliberately spread disinformation abroad or that use satellites to rebroadcast certain television channels. As far as economic sanctions are concerned, should we be able to target specific individuals, rather than imposing sanctions that hurt the general population?

Second, as I mentioned a little earlier in a question to the member for Winnipeg North, once the decision has been made to introduce sanctions, is there any way to really prove that they are effective? Unfortunately, based on what happened with the sanctions against Russian oligarchs after Ukraine was invaded, for example, I get the impression that the government cannot walk the talk. It wants to impose sanctions, but it is unable to ensure that the right people have been targeted, that their bank accounts have been seized and their money frozen. Again, sanctions are probably a good idea, but the problem is enforcing them.

Perhaps we should start by focusing on more effective sanctions in the immediate term, even though this issue has been dragging on for a long time. Back in 2018, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights unanimously adopted a motion to put the IRGC on the list of terrorist entities. Should we not be taking advantage of the fact that, shortly, there will be substantive work done to ensure that such a measure does not cause collateral damage?

On the substance, I understand the idea. I agree with adding the IRGC to the list of terrorist entities. However, it would have to be done in a precise enough way to ensure that there are no people suffering as a result, when they certainly should not have to. It could end up targeting people we may have some obligation to protect. Again, the devil is in the details.

Is this currently the right forum to hastily discuss that? Unfortunately, I do not think so, especially when concurrence motions are being moved in the House at the last minute. However, I trust the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to do more substantive work after hearing from experts on the issue, so that we can come up with a measured and, above all, effective position. That is the most important thing when dealing with the kind of issue that is before us today.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are well aware that the situation in the Middle East is very dangerous. The higher the military tension, the greater the possibility of a regional and even international conflict.

Canada is known as a country of peace. It was Canada that created international peacekeeping forces.

What does my colleague think that the Canadian government can do to advance peace and stability in the region?

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

Madam Speaker, I really love that question.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, which today heard from the minister about the defence policy update. I asked questions specifically about the rapid reaction forces that are there to keep the peace around the world. I asked when this rapid reaction force would be set up.

It was promised in 2017, when Canada wanted a seat on the United Nations Security Council. They said it would take five years to set it up. In 2022, the government said that finally it would set it up in 2026. Cuts were made to the defence budget in September. For the next two years at least, those cuts will not even be offset by the new announcements on military spending.

In this context, I get the impression that, once again, those are great words, but they are a far cry from what Canada was once able to do in terms of response forces for peacekeeping. Money is the sinews of war. Unfortunately, it feels like the government is not on board here.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about issues of implementation and specifically raised, again, concerns about conscription being an issue in designating a terrorist organization.

It is important to underline that it is not only the IRGC, where people being victims of conscription into a terrorist organization is an issue. This could well be an issue with many organizations that are currently, and have long been, on the list of designated terrorist organizations.

It is with reference not only to situations with the IRGC but also to other potential situations that we specifically proposed, in Bill C-350, an amendment that would ensure the provisions of IRPA, as it relates to terrorist organizations, do not apply to individuals who are victims of forced conscription into designated organizations.

We are proposing legislation that not only would designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization, but also would solve this problem for people who were conscripted into the IRGC and for others who may have been conscripted into other organizations.

It is important for members of the House to know that this problem has been solved by this proposal. Therefore, we have an opportunity to support Bill C-350 and to move this issue forward, listing the IRGC and addressing the conscription issue at the same time.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan raises a perfectly legitimate question, but why not debate it in the appropriate forum instead of raising it in the House at the last minute? We are debating it today without knowing all the ins and outs of it and without having had the opportunity to hear testimony from experts, for example, before speaking on the issue.

It is the method, not the substance, that I find somewhat disappointing about today's debate. The substance is important. No one in the Bloc Québécois would argue the opposite. We cannot really vote against this type of motion, but perhaps we do not have all the tools we need to vote for the motion and then hammer home the point that we need to implement all the measures we just voted for. The problem lies in how to proceed. We understand that there is work to be done in committee. We can debate the bill once the experts have pointed out its flaws, with a view to improving it.

Today, however, we are proceeding at the last minute with a motion for concurrence in a report, and that is not the right way to approach such a complex problem.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one thing my colleague spoke about was the use of concurrence debates to do this important work, and it is very important work that we undertake. In just a few weeks, in fact, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development will be looking at Iran, will be studying this and will be bringing forward the minister to talk about how we can do this in a way that protects those who are conscripted. That is where we should be having this debate. That is a meaningful way that we can ensure Canada is doing what needs to be done to make sure that Iran, the IRGC, who are very clearly terrorists, has its leadership punished, yet those who might be innocent are not. I wonder if she could comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I feel like taking my colleague's intervention, putting it in the present tense, removing the question mark and making it the answer. Every aspect of the answer was in the question as well as in my speech.

Indeed, this is not the right forum. This is an important issue and it deserves to be addressed properly in committee. With a bit of luck, we will stop having 72 motions moved by the Conservatives in committee and we will be able to do the work in this place like we should.

Instead of filibustering in the House, they should allow the committee to study this issue properly so that we can come up with real solutions.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who I would also like to thank for her leadership, consistency and advocacy in advancing this debate, which she just mentioned will happen at committee regarding her very own motion. I am so glad the other parties have finally realized how important that work is.

There has been some discussion in the House today, and I really want to bring this close to home. I am standing here today not only on behalf of the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, but also on behalf of the residents of Port Coquitlam. We lost a beautiful family on flight PS752: Ardalan, Niloo and their son Kamyar from Port Coquitlam. This beautiful young family who was lost in the downing of PS752 hit hard in our community that we call the Tri-Cities, and every new year, the Iranian and Persian families in my community, which has over 6,000 Iranians living in it, relive the PS752 incident.

I know that North Vancouver is looking at having a flight PS752 memorial. When I was at the memorial coming together this year, at the beginning of the year, it was discussed again by the B.C. government that it would be contributing to a memorial in North Vancouver. It is such a sad situation that Ardalan, Niloo and Kamyar were a family lost to a terrorist regime. However, it does not just stop with the downing of that flight or with the loss of this family; this is the lived experience of Iranians in the community of Port Moody—Coquitlam, in Anmore and Belcarra and in Port Coquitlam every single day when they go out and see people, who they know are associated with the regime, in the community.

The loss of Mahsa Amini was very difficult for the Persian community in B.C., whose members had to relive the experiences from which they fled to Canada. They have come to Canada for safety, yet when they go out shopping, when their kids go to school or when they are out in the community, they are being surveilled by a regime that has people here in Canada. People have come to my office over and again. A young man was in my office with his two-year-old son recently, crying because he knows there are people from the regime here in Canada doing surveillance, and there is nowhere he can go to share that information.

As I see there are some people here from the Liberal Party, and one is standing up right now, who would have some influence, I would ask this: Let us have a safe space where Persian Canadians and where people from Iran can come and tell their stories safely, a place where they can come and say that they have seen someone they feel is dangerous and can say that there is surveillance going on because it is a safe space, because coming to my office and telling me is not a safe space for them, or they do not feel that it is. Therefore, I would ask for that.

Before I get into a bit more around the woman, life, freedom event and the woman, life, freedom movement, Zan, zendegi, azadi, I would say that there are so many courageous, brave women and men in Port Moody—Coquitlam, in Anmore and Belcarra and in Port Coquitlam who, every single weekend, come out to stand up against violence against women, to stand up for the human rights of women, to honour Mahsa Amini and all those beautiful people who have been lost. They come out every weekend in Vancouver to do this work.

I wanted to share how the Persian culture has flourished so deeply in my community. Recently, for Nowruz, there were thousands of people who came to Town Centre Park to celebrate the festival of fire, to jump the fire and to start the new year with fresh, new energy. I think this is an opportunity, as the member for Edmonton Strathcona leads the debate at the foreign affairs committee, for labelling the IRGC as a terrorist entity. I thank her so much for doing that work. This is the new energy we need in this country.

We need to protect Persian Canadians, Iranian Canadians and Iranians who come to this country for safety, and we are benefiting from such rich cultures. That is kind of what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to just share what a beautiful culture comes together every year around Nowruz at the end of the year and at Yalda. Beautiful Persian culture gets shared with our community.

However, hanging over this is the regime that continues to show its head in B.C. and around the Lower Mainland, where I am. I hear about money laundering. I hear about the amount of real estate people who are associated with the regime have in my communities of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra. There is intimidation and fear. I was at a “women, life, freedom” event in Winnipeg not too long ago, and some of the people there were talking to me about the fact that they were wearing a mask because they need to hide their identity. They are not safe in Canada, and the government knows this.

I cannot go to an event in my community and not hear Persian community members telling me they have seen someone, at a bakery, out an event or purchasing a house locally in the community, who is associated with the regime. The government knows this, and not only is it not doing anything to stop it, but it is also making it very difficult for Iranians who live here who have had a baby. If they want their mother or grandmother to come see the baby, they cannot get a visa. In fact, in my office I feel like there is some prejudice happening from the government, from IRCC, disallowing people from getting a visa for a mother, a grandmother or a grandfather to come to see a family member, so I would ask the government to look at that too. There are many families here that would like to have their family members come to visit them.

I want to talk a bit about the LGBTQ+ community, because there are Iranian Canadians who come to my office who have family members, and sometimes it is a child, still in Iran who are members of the LGBTQ+ community. They are petrified and want to get their children out of Iran, yet they cannot even get an audience with IRCC on this. This is important work, and I would encourage the government to really understand that there are many Persian Canadians and Iranian Canadians who are still suffering at the hands of the regime here in Canada and who are being discriminated against by IRCC.

I think my main point is that it seems like we are talking about a regime that is far away. It is not far away if someone is not able to live their life freely in Canada, and we know that is happening. That is why I want to end my statement today by really talking about the work of the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who has been pushing to have a really thorough, important, deep debate on this discussion with witnesses who can come forward with testimony.

That is why I say that we are having some discussion today but we need to have deeper discussion, which is being led by the NDP member from Edmonton Strathcona. I thank her so much for her work, and I want her to know from the bottom of my heart and from the bottoms of the hearts of the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore, Belcarra and Port Coquitlam, that we need this debate to happen. We need to have protection for our citizens here in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's drawing our attention to the humanity of the issue. I have a very good friend, Kourash, whose partner died on the flight, and it is important, when we take a look at the issue and the depth of it, that a standing committee have an opportunity in the calling of witnesses and have a great deal more time. I like to think that at times, in a very apolitical fashion, a committee can be very effective at coming up with recommendations.

When I look at how the matter was raised today, that is one of the biggest problems I have, because I do not want to see it turned into a political game. That is one of the reasons I suggested that, at the very least, what should have been considered was an emergency debate, and if not an emergency debate, then to leave it with the standing committee, where proper research and justice could be done for all those Canadians who have very real anxiety.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know we are going to talk more about this, but what is important for the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore, Belcarra and Port Coquitlam, for whom I am going to speak today because I have the opportunity, is that the government consider and put on the terrorist list the IRGC, and for them to have a safe space where they can report what they are seeing. That is important to the residents of my community.

The third thing, which I will close on, is that it is important for my community that the government know that there are real estate and assets being bought up by people associated with the regime in my area, the Lower Mainland of B.C., and it needs to stop.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member on at least recognizing the fact that there are IRGC agents in Vancouver. I do spend quite a bit of time in the Persian community, but also with Kurds and Baloch, who are also all impacted. Many of them originate from Iran and are chased here by IRGC agents who continue to try to persecute them, whether it is with WhatsApp messages or telegram messages, telling them that their families will be found in Iran if they speak up or join one of the Jin, Jîyan or Azadi, to use the Sorani Kurdish dialect, if they join in Mahabad or Sanandaj or Saqqez. It is a regime that is more than happy to murder people both in Iran and all over the Middle East, then chase people to Europe and Canada and never leave them alone.

I want to bring up Kian Pirfalak because there was a tree-planting ceremony in Calgary in the name of this nine-year-old who was murdered by the IRGC.

I would like to hear from the member why she thinks it has been six years since Parliament passed a motion calling for the IRGC to be listed as a terrorist organization in our Criminal Code, and the government continues to refuse to do that.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a woman standing in Parliament, I can say that if there were more women in Parliament, if there were women in governments across the world, we would not be dealing with this. It was the Liberals who were lax, which I agree they are, and the Conservatives before them were also lax. Things that have to do with women and the human rights of women do not get the attention they deserve.

I raise my hands to all the brave and wonderful women who stood up for “women, life, freedom” and actually brought this to the table.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave an incredible speech, and she has raised the issues of her constituents.

New Democrats have tried for a very long time to expand the number of countries that we are looking at with regard to foreign interference, because we understand that it is an issue not just with China. It is an issue with many countries, like Russia and Iran, that have influence and political interference in our communities, in our neighbourhoods and our country from coast to coast to coast. We know there have been parties in the House that have not wanted us to look at that, have not wanted to expand that, but we are looking at political interference, and that is what we heard so clearly in the member's speech.

Can you explain why some parties did not want to include countries like Iran in looking at foreign interference?

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

I cannot explain anything, but the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam surely will.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona said, this has been important to the NDP. It has been important to our communities for a very long time.

I can only say that it is very unfortunate that the Liberal government and the Conservative government before it never put as high a priority on looking at foreign interference. Fortunately the NDP did. Fortunately New Democrats are the ones who have led the discussion that is happening now on foreign interference, and I am so looking forward to the study that is coming up from the foreign affairs committee, led by the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

Statements by Minister of National Defence to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise to quickly respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton respecting the allegation that the Minister of National Defence misled the House and the procedure and House affairs committee. I respectfully submit that this was not the case and that the House has the testimony that proves the minister was truthful with the House and the committee.

The question raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton concerns whether an Issues Management Note, an IMU, that was sent by CSIS was read by the minister. It was not received by the minister. While the minister had made an assumption about why he did not receive the IMU, that does not obviate the fact that he did not receive the IMU. The director of CSIS confirmed to PROC that the process that was put in place to share secret information with the minister did not work.

On June 1, 2023, the minister appeared at PROC and was asked by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton about the IMU. In response to the question, the minister stated:

Allow me to clarify that the information was not shared with me. It was authorized by CSIS to be shown to me....I would leave that question as one that perhaps you might want to put to the director....I was never notified of the existence of that intelligence, nor was it ever shared with me.

Mr. Vigneault and Mr. Stewart both acknowledged that the system to send intelligence information via an IMU to the minister did not function. Mr. Vigneault confirmed this fact at least four times over the course of his testimony. On June 13, 2023, at PROC, Mr. Vigneault stated:

Here, in this specific case, the minister was very clear: He did not get the information. It means the process that was put in place...did not, in this case, work.

...it is incumbent upon us, ourselves, his office and the Department of Public Safety, to find the right tool to put in place to make sure that critical information is seen by the minister.

I think this is one of the key measures that we need to put in place, to have this ability to adapt our processes when they're not working.

On October 19, 2023, Mr. Stewart stated at PROC about the failure of the system to ensure that the minister received the IMU, “The first question I answered was about the situation that occurred in the spring or summer of 2021. I think we identified the problems with the system that the agencies used to share information.”

It is clear that the minister's statement that he did not receive the IMU is corroborated by Mr. Vigneault and Mr. Stewart. Moreover, Mr. Vigneault and Mr. Stewart both confirmed to PROC that neither of them had orally briefed the minister on the content of the IMU. On June 13, 2023, Mr. Vigneault stated, “Madam Chair, I did not have any specific discussions with [the minister] about that note.” On October 19, 2023, Mr. Stewart told the committee: “I did not brief [the minister] about the IMU.”

On October 24, 2023, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton asked the minister whether there was any contradiction between Mr. Vigneault and the minister's statements. Here is the exchange:

[The Member for St. Albert-Edmonton]: Minister, can you explain why your testimony was flatly contradicted by the director of CSIS?

[The Minister]: With great respect, it was not contradicted. In fact, I sincerely believe it was the director's intent that the information be made available to me.

Unfortunately, the steps were not taken by CSIS or by the Department of Public Safety to make that information available to me. I had no way of knowing that they had a secret they wanted to tell me.

Under every other circumstance...the director of CSIS would advise my office they had information to brief me on. He would advise my office they had information they wished to share with me. I would then go to a secure room where that information was shared.

In some other circumstances, I was actually asked to attend the CSIS office in Toronto where that information would be briefed to me, but it did not take place in this circumstance.

On October 24, 2023, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable questioned the minister about an assumption he had made about why the information in the IMU was not provided to him. To which the minister stated:

All I can say with absolute certainty is that it was never shared with the minister—me—at the time.

Again, I don't question what Director Vigneault's intention was, but the execution was unsuccessful because the information was never shared with me.

At no time, either in committee or in the House, did the minister state anything other than he did not receive the IMU. The minister may have made an assumption as to why he did not receive the information, but there was never any doubt that the information did not get to him.

Finally, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton seems to be taking a creative approach to raise a question of privilege in the House in the context of a supplemental report to the 63rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee. Page 154 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

If, in the opinion of the Chair, the issue raised relates to privilege....the committee can proceed to the consideration of a report on the matter to the House.... It should clearly describe the situation, summarize the events, name any individuals involved, indicate that privilege may be involved or that a contempt may have occurred, and request the House to take some action.

This is clearly not the case with the 63rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee. A review of the proceedings on the matter at PROC do not reveal any evidence that clearly led members of the committee to conclude that a breach of privilege had occurred in respect of the minister's testimony. In fact, we can see no reference to a potential breach of privilege or that any contempt may have occurred in the committee's report. The only reference to such allegations is made in a supplemental report by the Conservative Party.

Page 995 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states in relation to supplemental reports:

Committees are not responsible for the content of these opinions. They are not, strictly speaking, part of the report. The authors of these opinions alone are responsible for their content.

If the matter the member was raising was, as he suggests, a clear contradiction of testimony that amounted to a breach of privilege, there would have been reference to this in the report. It is not in the report for the simple reason that there was no contradiction on the matter. The minister did not receive the information contained in the IMU in question, either in writing or orally, and that remains a clear fact of his statements in the committee and in the House.

There is no basis to find a prima facie question of privilege in this matter.

I thank the Speaker and the members of the House for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Justice and Human Rights

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to participating in this debate this evening.

I want to just say very quickly that I do not think a concurrence debate is the appropriate place for this debate to be happening. As I mentioned earlier tonight, I moved, over a year ago, a motion at the foreign affairs committee to look at this exact issue. In fact, in just a number of weeks we will be undertaking that study within the foreign affairs committee to look at this in a fulsome way and have an opportunity to hear from experts, hear from witnesses and hear from Iranian Canadians who have been impacted in our communities across this country.

Today, I want to start by telling a bit of a story. When I was elected in 2019, we were all sworn in in November. We had very little time in December before the House rose. I went home for Christmas holidays, like all of my colleagues did. Then, on January 8, 2020, flight PS752 was shot out of the sky by the terrorist regime in Iran. There were 176 innocent people on that flight. Fifty-five of them were Canadian. We had 30 permanent residents. Many of those individuals were from Edmonton, and particularly from Edmonton Strathcona. The University of Alberta was deeply impacted. It was the first event as a parliamentarian that I needed to deal with. I cannot say how difficult it was and how much grief my community felt.

The difficulty I had while sitting in the university's biggest auditorium for the memorial service that we held for the victims from Edmonton made that probably one of the hardest days I have ever spent. I sat with members from all parties for that memorial. I cried with Liberal members and I cried with Conservative members because it was such a devastating day for our community and it continues to be. I gather with the Iranian Edmonton community every year to mark that terrible day and to remember the beautiful souls who we lost that day.

In addition, it has been one and a half years since the horrific killing of 22-year-old Mahsa Zhina Amini and since the start of the “women, life, freedom” uprising in Iran. Over the past year and a half, we have been witness to the immense bravery of Iranian women, who are fighting for their rights, for their human rights and for Iranians around the world who have raised their voices, and their allies who have marched with them in the streets and who have raised their voices for the people of Iran, so that Iranians do not have to live under the tyranny of the terrorist organization that is the IRGC.

We are very clear that this is something that Canada must and can do more for. We have condemned, as New Democrats, the brutality against the Iranian people, including the hundreds of unlawful killings and executions, the tens of thousands of arbitrary arrests, widespread torture, including rape of detainees, and attacks on women and girls who defy the discriminatory compulsory veiling laws. In fact, as a country with a feminist foreign policy, we must do everything we can. I have talked about that policy often. We have never seen it, but we have been told that it exists.

I was so pleased last spring. I had put my name forward to sponsor a political prisoner in Iran. One of my dear friends from Edmonton, Mohammed, came to me. He asked if I would be willing to sponsor this Iranian prisoner, Armita Abbasi, a young, beautiful, vibrant woman who was in detention and had been tortured simply because she was trying to stand up for her own rights. I was delighted to be able to sponsor her. Imagine how happy I was when she was released from prison, when she was given back her freedom and was able to escape from the terrorists, the IRGC.

We need to make changes to the Canadian foreign policy. I will admit that it should have happened years ago and it is appalling that it has taken so long for the government to take action, particularly after PS752 and after the “women, life, freedom” movement began.

I will say we cannot make foreign policy based on concurrence debates. We need to do the work. That is part of what we do as parliamentarians. We need to look at this issue. We need to bring experts in. We need to examine it. We need to make sure we are making the right decision, because the worst thing we could do is make innocent people be punished by their own government, the IRGC, and then punished again if we are not careful in how we make sure those conscripted people are protected.

We, of course, want to see the IRGC, especially its leadership, declared as terrorists. We have been calling for it for some time, but we need to do the work. We need to do foreign policy carefully and thoughtfully, and make sure that no innocent people are caught up in the terrible things that have been done by the IRGC. There needs to be a robust commitment from the Canadian government to act on this, but it needs to be done thoughtfully and it needs to be done with the urgency this requires.

In remembrance of Mahsa Zhina Amini, of the countless innocent lives that have been taken and of those in prison, New Democrats express our profound solidarity and support for the Iranian people. I think we can all say that the events of the last several weeks have highlighted that we are at a dangerous moment in time in the Middle East. Certainly, we must impose stronger sanctions on the IRGC and Iranian regime. We must end Iran's support for terrorism in the region.

Time and time again, I have stood in this place and said that Hamas is a terrorist organization. That is very clear. Hansard is extraordinarily clear on this. Just like I have said, time and time again, that Canada has an obligation to adhere to international law. We also have an obligation as Canadians, and people expect us as Canadians, to do what we can to de-escalate war and to protect civilians and children. That is what people in our communities want from us. That is what our foreign policy should be doing.

What we are seeing in the Middle East right now is horrifying. There are more than 13,000 children who have lost their lives. We have to continue to call for a ceasefire. We have to continue to put pressure on all actors in the region, including Israel, to de-escalate tensions at a time when civilians are the ones paying the price. Let us be clear: The escalation of tensions in the Middle East will do nothing but cause increased pain for those who are most vulnerable right now.

Again, I would urge the government to come to the foreign affairs committee and the opposition parties to come to the foreign affairs committee. Let us sit down and do this important work. It has been over a year since my motion calling for the examination of Canada's, the Canadian government's, refusal for the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist entity; of the connections between people or assets in Canada and the IRGC; and of paths forward to support Iranian human rights activists, artists, journalists and other political refugees. The motion asked that the committee invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs to testify, as well as additional witnesses submitted by members of the committee, and that the committee report its findings back to the House.

This is important work. Canada has an important role to play. Historically, we have been able to play that role and we have been missing in action. Iranian Canadians expect this from us. Iranian people around the world expect this from us. There is more that we can do. This is not the opportunity for that, but we will look at this in the foreign affairs committee and we will expect our government to act.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her work on this file, as well as on many other issues that we both work on and agree on.

I had a volunteer who worked for me, named Arad Zarei. He was killed on that flight. At the remembrance for the victims of flight PS752, the Prime Minister was in our riding and reiterated our commitment to a responsible listing of the IRGC. We have also put very extensive measures in place under SEMA and IRPA.

I am just wondering if the member opposite would comment on how she feels the real issues facing the Iranian diaspora in Canada could be addressed while putting in place some of these measures.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague as well. We have worked very closely on issues around helping people in other parts of the world, and I appreciate her work.

One of the things that I have heard from many members in my community and from the Iranian Canadian community around the country, is that they do not feel heard by the government. They do not feel that the government has listened to them and acted with urgency. After flight PS752, they wanted an independent investigation. They wanted more to be done, and we did not see that action from the government.

In terms even of listing the IRGC, of course we support this motion. We will support this. This is important work. What we are not seeing is that communities feel that their concerns about foreign interference and about interference within their communities are being heard. Even when we look at the potential for sports teams to come here, for people to be in our community who are clearly bad actors that the government knows about, there is very little action.

We need the community to feel like the government is listening and acting on their needs.