Debates of April 15th, 2024

Foreign Affairs

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Canada unequivocally condemns the attacks by Iran against Israel. This was unprecedented. We support Israel and its people. This attack only serves to destabilize the region and to further escalate in the region. It is completely unacceptable.

That is why I have been in contact with my Israeli counterpart. I have also been in contact with many actors in the region. We will continue to push proactively to make sure that, indeed, there is no further escalation and that we bring peace back to the region.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to immediately adopt Bill C-234, as concurred in at third reading in the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Bilingual Documents in the House of Commons—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 20, 2024, by the member for Portneuf─Jacques-Cartier concerning the presentation of an amendment in one language only during the debates of Monday, March 18, 2024.

In raising the question of privilege, the member alleged that the ability of francophone members to fully participate in the proceedings of the House had been impeded because the government House leader had proposed an amendment in one language only near the end of debate on an opposition motion. In the member’s view, since the French version of the amendment was made available only a few moments before the vote, some members were unable to consider it properly, which amounted to obstructing the ability of francophone members to take part in House business. The member added that the use of either official language in the House is a constitutional right. He also cited Standing Order 65 in support of his assertions.

The deputy government House leader responded that the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, in bringing the matter to the House’s attention two days later, did not meet the requirement that a question of privilege be raised at the first opportunity. He also pointed out that the French version of the amendment was available well before the vote, enabling members to understand the content of the amendment.

The Chair would like to start by reiterating the importance of protecting and upholding parliamentarians' right to speak in the official language of their choice. The Chair appreciates their support in achieving this goal. It also takes seriously any attempt to trample on or limit that right.

Let us now revisit the events of March 18. A few minutes before the end of debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the government House leader put forward an amendment to it. The mover’s consent was obtained so that the text of the amendment could be proposed to the House. The written version was shared with the Chair, who read it and found it procedurally in order. A procedural discussion and a suspension of the House ensued.

Pursuant to a motion adopted by unanimous consent on March 1, 2024, the vote on the supply motion that day could not be deferred, which would normally have been allowed under Standing Order 45. As a result, the amendment, and the amended main motion, were put to votes.

Amendments are proposed fairly regularly during our proceedings. Their purpose is to make a motion more acceptable or to provide new text to replace the proposal being considered. The rules of debate have long allowed amendments to substantive motions while the latter are being debated. Of note, for most motions, the rules do not restrict when an amendment can be proposed, as long as it is procedurally acceptable.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following, on page 540:

A motion in amendment arises out of debate...requires no notice and is submitted in writing to the Chair. After an amendment has been moved, seconded and evaluated as to its procedural acceptability, the Chair proposes it to the House. ...Debate on the main motion is set aside and the amendment is debated until it has been decided....

The Chair can confirm that the sequence of events on March 18 was consistent with our rules and procedures.

Clearly, English or French may be used in the House, and members can move motions and amendments in the language of their choice. Official documents must, of course, be published in both official languages. This is a constitutional imperative. Language requirements are also set out in the Standing Orders, including in Standing Order 65, which provides that motions that are seconded must be read in English and in French.

However, since January 15, 1959, members have had access to simultaneous interpretation services. As the second edition of the Annotated Standing Orders states on page 227, and I quote:

The provision that all motions be read in both languages is…regularly relaxed, given the bilingual nature of the House and the existence of simultaneous interpretation.

The Chair was able to confirm that simultaneous interpretation was available when the amendment was moved and brought to a vote.

Moreover, the length and complexity of a motion or amendment have never been sufficient grounds for the Chair to rule a motion out of order or to deem that it could impede members’ ability to carry out their duties.

Accordingly, in the circumstances, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege in this case.

That said, the Chair would like to reiterate that while all parties have occasionally introduced amendments in one language only, it would be far better if they were prepared in both languages.

In any case, the Chair will continue to ensure that simultaneous interpretation is available when amendments are moved in the House. It will also ensure that a translation is available for consultation at the Table and in the electronic voting application before a recorded division. If necessary, the Chair will suspend the sitting in order to obtain the translation before proceeding with a vote.

Finally, the Chair encourages members who wish to suggest changes to the Standing Orders regarding the introduction of amendments to submit their proposals to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration.

I thank all members for their attention.

Justice and Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented to the House on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, be concurred in.

I rise once again to speak about the urgent need to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, to shut down its operations in Canada, to protect our friends and allies around the world, but also to protect ourselves.

I am sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with my friend and colleague, the member for Thornhill. I am very much looking forward to her remarks on this important motion to concur in a report from the justice committee that calls for, among other things, the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code.

Canadians have been anxiously following the news from the Middle East this weekend. The regime in Tehran launched a massive attack on the State of Israel. This attack follows the October 7 attacks, in which the Tehran-backed Hamas terrorist group brutally tortured, raped and killed many Israelis. We again condemn these attacks and we call for the release of all hostages.

Many have correctly identified, then and since, the role that the regime in Iran has played, supporting and backing Hamas. These far-away cowards seek to use the pain of the Palestinian people to advance their violent ends. Like Hamas's own leaders safely away in Qatar, the regime in Iran wants to attack Israel through proxies and with the maximal use of civilian human shields, while minimizing the risk to themselves. In this context, therefore, it is legitimate for Israel to take the fight against terrorism directly to Hamas's IRGC guides and paymasters, wherever they live.

As I have said many times, the Conservatives seek a two-state solution, in which Israelis and Palestinians could each pursue security and economic development through democratic, responsive and pluralistic self-governing institutions.

Let us be very clear that Hamas and IRGC terrorists do not want a two-state solution. They want to perpetually use the Palestinian situation as their justification for pursuing their selfish ends. The negotiated final status agreement that we hope for would in reality be the worst nightmare of these extremists, because these extremists thrive only in the midst of conflict and violence.

In the course of this weekend's events, it is worth recognizing and celebrating the effectiveness of Israel's defences. Israel's defensive technology is what has allowed the world's only Jewish state to survive as a state, facing constant existential threats from hostile forces. If people believe in Israel's right to defend itself, then they obviously must also have to believe in Israel's ability to procure the weapons that are necessary to defend itself. If people oppose the sale of weapons to Israel, then it is hard to make the case that they also believe in Israel's right to defend itself.

While recognizing the effectiveness of those Israeli defences, it is very important to recognize the vital contributions and collaboration of some of Israel's Arab neighbours, neighbours who have disagreements with Israel on various subjects but who are collaborating in the pursuit of peace and of shared security interests. There is a fundamental alignment between Israel and many of its neighbours, who are moving toward greater co-operation in response to the aggressive and colonial agenda of the regime in Iran. I hope that this will provide the basis for continuing and growing collaboration, and enhanced dialogue on a range of issues.

We know how many Muslim-majority states in the region have been victimized as a result of the horrific violence coming from the regime in Tehran. We could speak about Lebanon, about Syria, about Afghanistan, about Yemen, about the civil wars that are unfolding because of proxies that are sponsored by the regime in Tehran. We could speak about the support that the Taliban have received from the terrorist regime in Tehran, the destabilizing effect of Hezbollah in Lebanon and many other examples; the general capricious disregard that the regime in Tehran has shown for the peoples of all nations in the region; the constant genocidal demonization of Israel but also violence against all peoples in the region and around the world.

Needless to say, the fact that this attack was largely thwarted does not mean that it should be shrugged off or dismissed as merely symbolic. Indeed, the regime in Iran intended to break through Israel's defences and intended to wreak havoc. It will try again. It will try in other ways, as it did on October 7.

The regime in Tehran will continue to try to acquire more sophisticated and dangerous technology, including nuclear weapons, with which to attack Israel, with which to attack other peoples in the region and with which to threaten the security of all freedom-loving peoples wherever they live.

The events of this weekend underline why the Conservatives have been persistently calling on the government to recognize that the IRGC is a terrorist organization and therefore must not be allowed to operate in Canada. The call to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization means, quite simply, that we would use all our resources to shut down any possibility of this regime operating in Canada. If it is a listed terrorist organization, it is not able to recruit, fundraise or promote its ideology in Canada. This, especially after the events of this weekend, is the least we can do.

However, it did not take the events of this weekend for the Conservatives and for many other Canadians to realize that the IRGC must be listed as a terrorist organization. I put forward a motion in the House to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization six years ago, and this was before many of the events we have seen since, about which I will speak. The case was already clear six years ago and, at the time, the Liberals, including the Prime Minister, voted in favour of that motion. They voted in favour of it and said they were thinking about it. Six years later, they still say they are thinking about it, yet they have refused to act.

Since that vote in the House of Commons six years ago, we have had the shooting down of flight PS752, an event of great personal significance for many of my colleagues from the Edmonton area. We have had the opportunity to, year after year, go to memorials, meet with families and to hear the stories of pain and grief from these many Canadian families that have lost loved ones. Canadian citizens were murdered when the IRGC shot down a civilian aircraft leaving Tehran, flight PS752, yet that still was not enough for the government to recognize that the IRGC is a terrorist organization.

Since then, we have lived through the murder of Mahsa Amini and the “Women, Life, Freedom” protest movement. The Iranian people again, as they have in years and decades past, have taken to the streets, calling for change and seeking the same things we so often take for granted in Canada, the protection of their fundamental freedoms. The Iranian people are such heroes. They are such an inspiration to so many members. In spite of the sacrifice of those protesters and in spite of the murder and torture we have seen targeting the people of Iran, the people whom this regime supposedly governs, the Canadian government has refused to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. It is utterly shameful.

How much more violence do we have to see and how much more has to be done by this terrorist regime before the Canadian government finally recognizes and lists it as a terrorist organization?

There are the civil wars in Yemen and Syria; terrorists operating systematically outside of the law in Lebanon and Iraq; the brutal suppression of the Iranian people; attacks on Israel; the murder of Canadians and foreign-backed extremism in Canada; intimidation of members of the heroic, patriotic Iranian diaspora community in Canada; yet the NDP-Liberal government persists in failing to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

We have actually put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-350, a bill that would list the IRGC as a terrorist organization and would take further steps to hold the regime accountable, yet the Liberals have blocked efforts to expedite that bill.

Therefore, we are putting this question before the House again with our efforts to concur in this motion, which calls for the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization and for additional steps to protect Canadians from foreign-state-backed interference and to protect victims of violent extremism. This motion passed unanimously at the justice committee, and I hope it will pass the House when it comes to a vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservatives, particularly this member, using a concurrence motion to prevent debate on Bill C-50, and I will expand on that in due course.

The issue that the member wants to talk about today could have been dealt with on an opposition day. Yet again, the members of the Conservative Party feel that their days are not to be used for the purposes he is talking about with his concurrence motion on the report. Instead, they are using concurrence on reports for the sole purpose of disrupting government legislation. Can he explain to Canadians why the Conservative Party wants to use these types of motions to prevent substantial pieces of legislation from being debated?

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is fairly obvious to everybody, except this member, that this is a serious and substantial matter worthy of urgent debate in the House of Commons.

I want to assure all members that we have, at the earliest opportunity following this weekend's events, and in the most efficient way possible, put a motion before the House to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. I hope the motion will pass as quickly as possible so that we can finally send a message that the IRGC should be listed as a terrorist organization. I hope that, after six years of delay, the government will finally do it. It has been six years, and on all of the events I have described over those six years, the government is out of excuses. It is time to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization and shut down its operations in Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Iranian regime is despotic, and we have seen repeated human right violations. We have seen a regime that has undermined human rights and has undermined countries in the region repeatedly. There is no democratic ability for folks to speak out. In fact, the killing of political prisoners and the widespread use of torture is something that is a hallmark of this despotic regime.

There was discussion at committee, as the member points out, and I want him to talk about the positions of the various parties around the table. The NDP, of course, has been very supportive of listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization. We believe this should have happened, but it has not yet. What were the positions of the parties around the table when this report was produced?

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

Madam Speaker, I do want to mention, respectfully to the member, that in 2018, when I put forward this motion, every present member of the NDP voted against my motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. At least they were more honest than the Liberals who voted in favour of the motion but then did not do it.

The member says that the NDP is supportive of listing the IRGC, which is news to me. It is the first time I have heard this. However, if that is the case, if that is the NDP position, I think it is great news. Let us pass this motion, and let us pressure the government to actually, finally, get this done.

As I mentioned during my remarks, this report was unanimous at the justice committee, and we have had unanimous reports on this matter before from other committees. The problem is just that the government never gets it done. We will continue to persistently push this issue until the government actually does it and takes action to shut down IRGC operations in Canada.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this urgent matter to the attention of the House.

It has been six years. The House passed the resolution, and yet the government has not acted. We have seen, over the years, the level of threats and intimidation that has gone on within the Iranian community because of the IRGC. Can the hon. member tell the House why he thinks the government is failing to act on designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization?

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

Madam Speaker, it is hard to speculate what is in the minds of the members across. I have asked this question over and again to successive foreign affairs ministers, at committee, in the House, at every opportunity. We never get a clear explanation.

I have put forward the bill that would allow the government to do it. I have asked if we could expedite that bill at least to committee. In fact, I will ask for that now.

I ask for unanimous consent for Bill C-350 to be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Let us send it there for further study. Is there consent?

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this important motion because of what we witnessed this weekend.

There was the delay of the government to say anything at all on following our allies and at least condemning this in a reasonable amount of time. We did not see that.

I ask members to imagine being part of a government that six years ago voted in favour of listing the IRGC, to imagine seeing what happened this weekend with 300 projectiles being fired directly on a democratic ally, to imagine being part of a government when the Saudis were better allies to our friend and democratic partner than the Government of Canada has been, and to imagine getting up in the House to say that the motion today is not an important motion to debate after witnessing 300 projectiles directly fired on a friend and democratic ally. Members do not have to imagine it. It just happened.

There has been six years of foot-dragging. The question has been asked hundreds of times in the House as to what day and at what time the government is going to list and ban the IRGC terrorists, who are operating openly in our country. Today, in the House, the answer was exactly the same. The government is trying, consulting and working on it. This has been the answer for six years, yet the Prime Minister himself got up and voted to ban the IRGC.

Today the mullahs in Iran and their proxies are fighting wars that kill Canadians. They killed hostages with Canadian citizenship. They killed 55 Canadians in the downing of flight PS752, 30 of whom were permanent residents. Since 2015, the government has done nothing but appease the mullahs in Iran. The Prime Minister himself met with the foreign minister, bowing his head in respect, in 2016, not even a year after the flight went down. It was absolutely disgusting to watch.

There are communities all over the country that know that operatives of the regime openly spend money. They have blood money to buy homes and assets in this country. Their kids go to school at universities here. The flood gates are open. We know that they intimidate Canadians in every single neighbourhood. We know that the chief of police of Tehran worked out in at GoodLife Fitness in midtown Toronto. We know that senior members of the regime are eating steak dinners in fancy restaurants in Toronto openly, with impunity. This is after eight years of the government.

The worst is what we saw in the streets of Toronto. At the very moment the projectile missiles fired on a democratic friend and ally, there was celebration and jubilation in the streets of our biggest cities. There was a failure to denounce that by a party that we know is capable of denouncing all kinds of protests in this country. If its members were at all concerned with the desecration of a statue in front of Parliament and said nothing about what has happening in our streets, the mobs of protesters with covered faces brandishing swastikas, I cannot help them.

However, what we can do today, as a country, is to ban the open operations, the ability to raise money and organize, of the IRGC terrorists who live among us, and there are at least 700 who we know about in this country, yet we get the same answers over and again. The government has been asked no less than 100 times in the House, and the answer is always the same. They say that they take terrorism seriously, that they are working on it and that they are looking into it. It has been six years.

If this weekend and the events from this weekend have not changed that answer, then we have a really big problem with the government. We have a really big problem with how it treats terrorism, how it treats national security in this country and how it treats the very communities who elect its members to come here. We also have a problem with members of Parliament from the other side, particularly the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill, who meets with agents of the IRGC in his office. It is open, and it is known. I will say it inside of the House and outside of the House. His community knows that, and it is shameful. The fact that the answer is the same today, that they are working on it or they are looking at different ways to do it, is absolutely shameful.

The 700 IRGC agents we know about who we have living in this country, and there are potentially more, intimidate Canadians every single day. They intimidate Canadians in neighbourhoods right across the GTA and in North Vancouver. We hear them. Our own conversations with them happen sometimes with a blurred out background because they are so scared about making the call to somebody in government or their MP for help that they blur out the background. They sit in their car away from their home because they are terrified of the intimidation that they face here.

There are thousands of Iranian Canadians, freedom-loving Iranian Canadians, who fled that regime to find safety and a better life here in Canada. Their expectation from their government is that they will be kept safe and free of intimidation, be able to go to school and to work, and be able to talk to their MP from their home without being terrified of being watched by the regime. That is what we are dealing with in Canada. That is what the community is dealing with in Canada. Those people have said so, and they continue to call on the government, after six years of it doing nothing to at least list these operatives as the terrorists they are.

Today in Canada, they can raise money, have meetings and organize. This is the Islamic regime in Iran that has been fighting proxy wars against our ally until the direct attack on the weekend. This is the regime in Iran that has funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. This is the most destabilizing force in all of the Middle East and one of the most destabilizing forces in the entire world. The very fact that the government answers the question in the same way today as it has for the last six years, and for two years before that, is a darn shame because there are people in this country who want to see the government take national security and terrorism seriously. It is about time that it do that. It is about time that it does that for every single freedom-loving Canadian who sees what is going on in their streets, where the progressive left has been co-opted by the Iranian regime with things like Al-Quds Day, which is funded entirely by the mullahs in Iran to destabilize our own streets here.

It is unbelieve that the Liberals' answer after six years is exactly the same. They say, “We are working on it. We are going to do it. We have a tough sanctions regime on Iran.” They do not even know how many operatives are here. They do not know how many people they are going to put on their list because they do not have a list. If they did have a list, they would produce that list. It is a government that does not take terrorism seriously. It is a government that does not take national security seriously. Soon there will be a government that does, but until then, the Liberals can do one thing. They can ban the IRGC from organizing, from fundraising and from living freely here and intimidating our own citizens. That is what this motion calls on, and I hope the Liberals vote in favour of it.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Iranian regime has brought untold harm onto its own citizens and has caused chaos throughout the region and the world. There is no argument from me on that.

The United States has listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity, but doing so has actually had a profound effect on a number of Canadians. There are about 30,000 Canadians in Canada who were conscripted to be part of the IRGC. Through no fault of their own, they are not able to travel to the U.S. for vacations or for work opportunities. It includes their spouses and their children as well. This is already having a profound impact. I actually had an email today from a constituent who was asking about this.

How would my hon. colleague go about ensuring that, by listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity, it would not bring these types of issues onto our citizens? How might that be approached?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is dealt with in Bill C-350 and he could have passed it right now if the Liberals did not oppose it on the floor of the House of Commons.

The member is giving a bureaucratic answer for a regime that subjugates women, that kills members of the LGBTQ community, that kidnaps and tortures its own people, and that has brought that over into our country to intimidate people in his own riding, in my riding and in many of the ridings people here represent.

That bureaucratic answer is what he is going to have to tell his members who are constantly being intimidated by a regime that is the most destabilizing regime in the entire world.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech this afternoon on this very important concurrence motion.

I would like her to comment on what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said just before question period when she stood in front of the microphone. She spoke to an Israeli counterpart and said, after the weekend attacks, they should just take the win and de-escalate the situation. Obviously, we would like to see a de-escalation of the situation in the Middle East, but she implied that Israel should somehow take the win because there were no deaths. Fortunately, Saudi Arabia and Jordan intervened and shot down many of the airborne missiles and weapons sent to Israel.

Can she comment on the Minister of Foreign Affairs's comments?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot keep up with the multiple positions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs or her inability to ever talk about this issue without being naive.

I could not do that, but I do know one thing: The Prime Minister and the government have outsourced their foreign policy to the progressive left. It has resulted in Canada, following a motion that was just passed in the House, supporting the stopping of arms sales to Israel, while they are, out of the other side of their mouths, telling the Israelis that Canada stands with them. They cannot walk and chew gum at the same time; at least the foreign minister cannot.

It is unfortunate to see that a long-standing consensus of support for a democratic friend and ally has been left to languish on the floor of the House of Commons by the Liberals. There will be a time when we return to that long-standing consensus in this country, and that time cannot come soon enough.

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

Madam Speaker, can the member tell us when she believes they should have received that designation? She often makes reference to six years ago. Is that when the Conservatives would have put it in? When would they have put in the designation?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a party that unanimously voted for it in June 2018. That was six years ago. They could have done it any single day in those six years. The fact that the answer is the same today after what happened this weekend is absolutely shameful, and that member should be ashamed of himself for even asking that question.

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

Madam Speaker, I will tell members what the member opposite, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, should feel. She should feel ashamed of the way the Conservative Party is manipulating an issue that is as serious as it is, all for the sake of playing a political game. Let there be no doubt that this is all this is for the Conservative Party of Canada.

I asked a legitimate question of the Conservative deputy leader. What kind of response did she give? She talked about shame. The Conservative Party has no concept or idea of what diplomacy or international foreign affairs is actually about. When we asked when the Conservatives would have brought it in, what did she say? That they brought in a motion and it was passed a few years ago. She completely avoided the question after condemning our government for the actions we have taken in regard to this particular issue.

Further to that, if someone listens to that member or the critic, they will see they are being critical of its being six years ago. When did Donald Trump make that declaration? The Conservatives say they do not wait for Donald Trump, yet they are asking why we were not there for the United States. When did Donald Trump do it? It was less than six years ago. There is a hint. Maybe they can do a bit of research on it. Then they talk about the European Union—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point order. The member is talking about making the IRGC a terrorist organization, so I would call relevance on the member's comments and ask if you could—

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

The hon. member knows there is a lot of latitude on relevance. The hon. member has 20 minutes for his speech, and there is lots of time to get there.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe the member would stand and ask a question on relevance when every aspect of everything I have said is absolutely relevant. It is a reflection on the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour and how its members like to ensure there is dysfunction in the chamber. They play this political game of bringing up motions for concurrence of this nature in order to prevent debate.

At the same time, they will say this is such an important issue and that is the reason they want to debate it today. However, they did not have the political courage to bring it forward in the form of an emergency debate. They say how important it is and that they are not playing a game with this issue, but rather that it is a serious issue. Then they cite the United States and ask why it is taking Canada so long. When I start to explain it, they jump up like jelly beans and say what I am saying is not relevant. How stupid of a comment from the opposition—