Debates of May 21st, 2024

Foreign Affairs

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, Canada is committed to holding the Iranian regime accountable for its terrorist activities and gross violations of human rights. The government is exploring all possible measures to constrain the activities of the Iranian regime, and recognizes its disregard for peace and stability in the region. The government uses multiple instruments and has measures in place to hold Iran accountable for its actions, including listing key entities and proxy actors pursuant to its Criminal Code terrorist-listing regime.

In 2012, Canada listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Qods Force as a terrorist entity. The Qods Force is known to be responsible for terrorist operations and for providing arms, funding and paramilitary training to other terrorist groups, including the Taliban, Hizballah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

I would like to reiterate the various measures Canada is imposing against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. They include vigorous sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, explicitly targeting the IRGC, its leadership and several sub-organizations, including the IRGC air force and the air force missile command.

To date, Canada has sanctioned 442 Iranian individuals and entities under SEMA. Since October 2022, Canada has imposed 16 rounds of sanctions under the act, targeting 153 individuals and 87 entities at all levels of Iran's security, intelligence and economic apparatus. These measures effectively freeze any assets that the listed individuals and entities may hold in Canada.

Canada has also taken inadmissibility measures through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, and the CBSA. For example, in November 2022, Canada designated Iran as a country that has engaged in terrorism and systematic and gross human rights violations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA. As a result, thousands of Iranian senior officials, including high-profile leaders, are now banned from entering Canada if they apply for a visa or seek to enter the country. Current and former senior officials who are here in Canada may be investigated and removed from the country.

As of March 2024, approximately 17,800 applications had been reviewed for potential inadmissibility under the IRPA, and IRCC had cancelled 82 visas under the act. The CBSA had launched 86 investigations, and additional investigations were to be launched as new information became available. Forty-three investigations had been closed, and 13 individuals had been deemed inadmissible to Canada.

Since June 2023, when Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, received royal assent, the IRPA has been aligned with SEMA to ensure that all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under SEMA are also inadmissible to Canada.

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

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

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, what we have just seen shows the disdain the Liberal government has for the Iranian community and for all Canadians seeking freedom and justice. I asked a very specific question, which is whether the government will finally list the IRGC as a terrorist organization and shut down the operations in Canada. We received no answer. Instead, a parliamentary secretary read out a pre-prepared statement that in no way addressed the question.

Now the parliamentary secretary who is answering my questions tonight is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Families, Children and Social Development and Mental Health and Addictions. In other words, she has no responsibility in any way related to the file about which I am asking. It is hard to blame her as she has been put in this position. She has no responsibility for public safety or for foreign affairs. Of course, she cannot answer the question. It is not even an issue she is working on, but the people who are supposed to be working on this issue could not be bothered to show up to answer the question tonight.

Again, will the government finally list the IRGC as a terrorist organization and shut down its operations? Yes or no?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer is the same answer that my colleague would have received from any other parliamentary secretary.

In terms of adding the IRGC to the list, I would like to point out that the Government of Canada could use listing as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code as a way to respond to Iran's blatant contempt and gross violations.

Moreover, the Government of Canada is committed to holding the Iranian regime and the IRGC accountable for their actions that support terrorism and for gross and systematic violations of human rights.

Mental Health and Addictions

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I begin my comments here tonight, I want to share a sad note that I got from a constituent of mine only a couple of months ago. Daniel Paul had written me, sadly, with the news that his father, Gordon, 65 years old and a resident of the Cornwall and SDG area, was scheduled to come into my office a couple of months ago for some help. Unfortunately, Daniel let me know that, tragically, before his father was able to fulfill that appointment, he had taken his own life. I want to share an email that I exchanged with Daniel. He reached out and said to me that he would really appreciate it if I could share his father's story to highlight the absolute crisis we are facing in this country. He said that it would greatly help his family to heal if his story could be used to shed light on the countless others still suffering today from affordability.

I want to give my condolences here on the floor of the House of Commons, as I said I would do, to Daniel, his wife, Amber, and his five-year-old daughter, Sophie. They have lost their father, father-in-law and grandfather in circumstances I can only imagine have been extremely difficult for them.

I wanted to do this for Daniel and his family to let them know that, at the end of the day, in the House there are members who are working every day to help those who are suffering, whether it be with the affordability crisis we face or the mental health crisis we face, and getting optimism and hope for Canadians. I wanted to keep my word, as I have, and give my condolences to Daniel and his family and continue to fight the good fight in his father's memory.

I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to ask a question about the radical drug policy of the Prime Minister and the NDP in British Columbia, with the support of the NDP here in Ottawa propping up the Prime Minister. When it came to the decriminalization, or legalization, of using hard drugs in public spaces in British Columbia, it was the Prime Minister's judgment and that of his coalition partners, which for years could have rejected the pitch from the B.C. government on this aspect, but instead, they approved it. Finally, after the pleas of the B.C. NDP government, which just happens to be facing an election later this year, and more importantly the horror stories that have been emerging from every part of the province about the disaster, the Prime Minister's decision was to reverse the exemption from the Criminal Code of the use of hard drugs such as crack, meth, fentanyl and opioids in public spaces.

I want to not just use the words I have shared here today, but also to share from news articles. It was the CBC, of all media, that covered the Vancouver deputy police chief, Fiona Wilson, testifying on April 15 here at the House of Commons' health committee about the pilot and the Prime Minister's decision to decriminalize and allow hard drugs in public spaces. She said that it is “limiting police response to problematic public drug use, including inside hospitals and at bus stops”, and “in the wake of decriminalization, there are many of those locations where we have absolutely no authority to address that problematic drug use, because the person appears to be in possession of less than 2.5 grams”. She goes on to give a startling example: “So, if you have someone who is with their family at the beach, and there's a person next to them smoking crack cocaine, it's not a police matter.”

What extremely poor judgment on the part of the Prime Minister to agree to the B.C. NDP request. He is just as complicit as they are on this out-of-touch wacko policy, as we have mentioned before.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, the overdose crisis is one of the most serious and unprecedented public health threats in Canada's recent history, and it is impacting communities across the country. Our hearts go out to the individuals, families and friends affected by this public health crisis.

As part of its holistic approach, our government is continuing to support efforts to divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and towards health and social services. This approach reduces immediate harm and helps people find the right supports, including treatment and recovery, while keeping our communities safe.

We have amended the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to encourage police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to charging and prosecuting individuals for drug possession offences.

These amendments mean that individuals can avoid being criminalized and get the help they need to address underlying issues. This strategy encourages a public health approach while making sure that police have the discretion to move forward with criminal offences when there are risks to public safety. Furthermore, in August 2020, guidelines issued by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada directed prosecutors to consider alternatives to prosecution for the personal possession of drugs, except in the most serious cases where public safety concerns arise.

In 2021, the Government of British Columbia requested the launch of a decriminalization pilot project to help address the overdose crisis in the province. B.C. has asked that we make amendments to its project, and we have granted B.C.'s request to prohibit possession of controlled substances in public spaces. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their communities. Law enforcement also needs to have the tools necessary to address issues of public safety while continuing to take a compassionate and public health approach. From the outset, we have been clear. B.C.'s exemption could and will be adjusted if needed. We will continue to work together and respond to what is actually working on the ground.

We will continue working hand in hand with all of our partners, including provincial jurisdictions, law enforcement, indigenous communities, people with lived and living experience, and municipalities across this country every step of the way.

There is no universal solution to this crisis. It requires a global response. We are ensuring that Canadians have access to a full range of options to help them access prevention, risk reduction, treatment and recovery services. These are services and support that they need, when and where they need them. It is not one or the other. We need a full continuum of care.

Last week, I participated in the travelling study of the Standing Committee on Health on the overdose crisis. Every party was represented, except for the Conservatives, who came for just half a day because the Conservatives refuse to look at the evidence. They are bent on their ideological approach.

Budget 2024 announced $150 million over three years to help the municipalities and first nations communities quickly access funding to mobilize efforts, respond to their urgent harm reduction needs and save lives immediately.

This government remains committed to addressing substance use and addiction as a health issue. All partners must work together—

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

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gets bad in hospitals. The president of the B.C. Nurses' Union confirmed it and “said the maternity ward of Victoria General Hospital is now equipped with a special device to detect harmful particulate matter such as smokable drugs. A light goes off to warn health care staff that potentially harmful substances are in the air so they can wear a respirator for protection.” That is what happens when this Prime Minister, the NDP and the Liberals got together for their radical drug decriminalization plan.

My follow-up is a key question. Will the Liberals and the NDP support our safe hospitals act, our common-sense Conservative plan, to make sure that these types of experiments will never be allowed in hospitals again, to protect our health care workers and, most importantly, a second important key part the government did not address in that first part, will they rule out ever expanding this type of failed experiment anywhere else in this country, yes or no?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will continue to work with British Columbia, the other provinces and territories and all of our partners to address specific needs and support public health and safety.

Law enforcement partners have been clear. They do not want to arrest people for personal drug possession, but rather they want the necessary tools to address issues of public safety. They support a comprehensive public health approach to addressing substance use harms where they can redirect someone away from the criminal justice system to available and accessible health and social services.

Our government's approach to dealing with this crisis is comprehensive and co-operative. It includes measures necessary to save lives, monitor its actions and make any necessary adjustments.

Carbon Pricing

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask for further details about the impact the carbon tax is having upon Canadians, but what I would like to highlight in the next couple of minutes is the common-sense proposal the Conservative Party leader, the member for Carleton, has put forward to give Canadians a much-needed break for the summer.

The carbon tax is costing Canadians significantly. The price of food for an average family is up more than $700 for this year compared to last year. There are a record two million visits to a food bank in a single month. We saw the carbon tax rise on April 1 a shocking 23%. Common sense shows that if one taxes the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who ships the food, the store that sells the food and the person who has to go to pick up the food, the cost of food rises. It is driving up the cost of everything.

This year, the Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal carbon tax will cost families in Alberta almost $3,000 a year. In Saskatchewan, it is more than $2,600 a year, and in Manitoba, more than $1,700 a year. In Ontario it is $1,670 a year, and in Nova Scotia, $1,500 a year. In Prince Edward Island, it is $1,600 a year, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, $1,870 a year. Canada-wide, the average cost to Canadians is nearly $2,000. That is the cost even when calculating the rebate. The net cost to families is nearly $2,000 a year, which is crippling at a time when inflation is up and Canadians are simply looking for a break.

That is why only a number of days ago, the common-sense Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, called for a tax holiday, to cancel all of the federal government taxes on gasoline and diesel to help Canadians and give them a much-needed break so they can maybe afford not only to buy the necessities that are required to raise a family, and that seniors require to get by, but also to make sure they have the chance to live out a little bit of the Canadian dream. Maybe that is going on a road trip or maybe it is driving their kids to sports. It would give them that chance and ensure that a much-needed break is given.

The question I asked a number of months ago in relation to the carbon tax is very simple: Will the member speak out in favour of the common-sense proposal to cancel the federal government's fuel taxes on gasoline and diesel to give Canadians a much-needed break from Victoria Day to Labour Day? That would mean cancelling the carbon tax, cancelling the federal fuel tax and cancelling the GST so Canadians can afford that little bit of hope, that little bit of a break that is so very needed at a time when Canadians are suffering so much.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain again to the hon. member that putting a price on pollution is at the centre of the government's plan to fight climate change and curb its devastating effects on our communities and economy.

The negative impacts of climate change are very real. The public will not soon forget the destructive force of last year's forest fires that scorched much of Canada and choked our communities, which were cloaked in thick smoke. It would be irresponsible of us to stand idly by.

We are proposing solutions to deal with our rapidly changing climate. Standing still is unacceptable. We must act. Our efforts are not just to benefit our generation; they are to benefit future generations of Canadians, our children and their children.

Our government is taking the necessary steps that will have effective, concrete impacts, and a vital part of the plan is Canada's price on pollution. Without a doubt, pollution has a cost. Applying a price on carbon pollution is widely recognized as one of the most efficient ways to reduce emissions.

What is more, this way of proceeding means that the price on pollution remains affordable to Canadians. We sometimes hear, particularly in the House, that putting a price on pollution costs Canadians too much. I can assure members that this statement is completely false. In fact, in the provinces where the federal pollution pricing applies, people get back a large part of the revenues generated, and low-income earners benefit the most.

This means our system is helping with the cost of living for a majority of Canadian families, while encouraging choices that will help Canada lower its emissions. Our price on pollution ensures that eight out of 10 households in these provinces are receiving more money back through quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay. Thanks to our government's pollution pricing mechanism, a family of four living in one of these provinces can receive up to $1,800 in 2024-25. As members can see with our plan, we are not only fighting climate change, but we are also returning money to Canadians.

The government does not keep any direct proceeds from federal pollution pricing. Instead, the government returns the money collected to households, small and medium-sized businesses, farmers and indigenous governments. International experts agree that our pollution pricing mechanism is an effective way to fight climate change.

With this approach, we are sending a clear message that pollution has a price, and as we know, it absolutely does. Putting a price on carbon pollution encourages reduction across the economy, while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. Removing pollution pricing, as the Conservatives have called for, would eliminate its powerful incentive to encourage people and businesses to pollute less. Removing pollution pricing, as the Conservatives have called for, would only confirm that they do not want to fight climate change and they do not have a plan.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have two words: false and failure. That describes exactly what the member just said. It is false that families get more back than they pay into it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made that very clear. When the net cost, which is the impact the carbon tax has on the economy, is calculated, 60% of Canadians end up paying more. There is also the negligible cost for many who do receive a rebate, but it certainly does not have the impact that the member is saying it has.

It is a failure when it comes to addressing the environment. It is not working. Why does the member, and the Liberals, propped up by the cowardly NDP, continue to blame single moms driving their kids to soccer practice, families that want to go on vacation, and grandparents who want to see their grandkids? Why are they blaming those people for the challenges facing the country and making them pay more? Why not adopt our common-sense proposal, which is to axe the taxes on fuel this summer—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, is the member calling into question the opinion of over 300 experts in Canada who have clearly demonstrated that pollution pricing is the right way to go? What we are doing is protecting people from the dangers and costs of climate change and ensuring that Canada continues to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

Not only does our price on pollution help combat climate change, but it is also giving more money back directly to Canadian families at a time when so many need it the most.

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

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:29 a.m.)