Debates of Nov. 26th, 2025

Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is clearly based on very commendable and noble ideas. Furthermore, we truly believe there are some elements that are interesting enough to warrant closer examination, but certain details still need to be worked out.

This idea seems to be inspired by the Americans and directly drawn from the 1990s. We know that when the Americans tightened sanctions against several countries, in the name of fighting corruption, for example, that was accompanied by the extraterritoriality of law, meaning that the Americans forced sovereign nations and companies in other countries not to do business with countries that the United States wanted to boycott.

Is my colleague concerned that with such a bill, Canada would be replicating this form of imperialism to some extent?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would just say that this is not about trying to force other governments to change their regimes. This is about changing the behaviour of individuals. This is about going after those who ultimately go and rob from the people they are supposed to be serving and then commit atrocities against them. We want to make sure that they are held to account. If we do not do that, they will turn into even worse criminals, worse human rights abusers and, ultimately, monsters.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to speak to Canada's active efforts to advance human rights; combat corruption, including through the use of sanctions; and continue to explore the possibilities of the bill.

Canada is committed to upholding the legacy left by Sergei Magnitsky in establishing a global framework to combat corruption and human rights violations. Whether by holding states accountable for violations, championing the rights of women and girls, indigenous peoples and vulnerable groups or by countering the threat of transnational repression, human rights remain at the core of our Canadian identity. These are values that are central to our foreign policy, as articulated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They are foundational and necessary for a secure society and to make a society prosperous.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for presenting this private member's bill, Bill C-219. The bill underscores a common objective that we share in the House, which is to work together to promote and protect human rights internationally and to modernize how Canada enacts sanctions.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the member for Northumberland—Clarke, who introduced a similar bill in the previous Parliament. Like its predecessor, Bill C‑219 highlights the important ways in which Canada protects international human rights.

Bill C-219, at its core, seeks to amend four laws, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act; the Special Economic Measures Act, known as SEMA; the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or the Magnitsky law; and the Broadcasting Act.

Bill C-219 is very well intentioned and includes important measures to modernize our approach. However, some provisions, as currently drafted, could inadvertently undermine individual or public safety and hinder the effectiveness of sanctions. We believe that the foreign affairs committee is absolutely necessary and is the right place to delve into this piece of legislation to make sure that it mirrors Canadian values and the objectives that we all share in the House regarding human rights and the protection of individuals and society.

I will summarize some of the key elements of the bill and identify areas where consideration in committee could add some important and significant value. While the government plays a central role in the protection of human rights, as governments around the world do, we are not alone in these efforts. Day after day, human rights defenders, activists, journalists, lawyers, community leaders and everyday citizens are the backbone of accountability and progress. Their insights, their lived experiences and their grassroots connections strengthen policy and democratic institutions around the world. Supporting them is not optional. It is an imperative. We need to especially stand by them when they are in peril.

“Voices at Risk: Canada's Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders” reflects the government's commitment to supporting their essential and courageous work. Canadian officials abroad adapt these guidelines to the local context and specific needs of each individual and each case. They do so to provide the most effective support and defence possible, often in close collaboration with our partners.

When a human rights defender who is at risk is a Canadian, regardless of whether they are a dual citizen, Canada considers this to be a consular case. These cases are monitored closely by Canadian officials providing consular assistance on a, usually, daily basis. This is part of the Vienna Convention.

While the bill seeks to protect human rights defenders, we have concerns that some of the specific elements could put the safety and security of human rights defenders, including Canadian citizens, at risk. I know that the safety and security of these defenders are paramount to all of us in the House, and I look forward to exploring these issues in greater detail at committee.

The government recognizes and values Parliament's role not only in studying sanctions but also furthering our sanctions regime, the tools to protect human rights and the tools to take on corruption and other crises.

The passage of a Senate public bill, Bill S-226, in 2017, was one example of Parliament's working to improve our sanctions regime as a response to human rights violations and acts of significant corruption. Two reports, tabled in the Senate and in the House in 2023 and 2024, respectively, showed how significant our work in this House is to make sure that government is responsive to the desires, the will and the aspirations of Canadians.

Sanctions are a key component in Canada's approach to protecting the rules-based order and in advancing human rights. Recently, we have seen the use of sanctions increase significantly as conflicts escalate in nature, such as in the case of Ukraine. Canada has sanctioned nearly 2,300 individuals and over 1,000 entities or vessels since 2022. It is an exponential increase in the number of sanctions that we have been doing. However, at the same time, we want to constantly re-examine our sanctions regime to make sure it is fit for purpose.

Our government remains firmly committed to ensuring that Canada plays a leading role in preserving and strengthening a rules-based international order. Sanctions are a critical tool for advancing this approach.

However, as I said, we need to update the sanctions tool box. I am very pleased that the member has added the concept of transnational repression, and I reflect on the fact that the Bloc Québécois has also seen this as an important new trigger for sanctions. We respectfully accept this and think it is an important addition.

However, we think the bill can be strengthened by adding some other triggers, such as migrant smuggling, foreign interference, cyber- and hybrid attacks, organized crime, undermining democracy and arbitrary detention. These are things that should also trigger the use of sanctions, as well as transnational repression.

I want to underscore that in all of this, we need to be evidence-based and thoughtful as we push on the sanctions to make them effective. We do not want to add cost to the system. We want to ensure that we find an effective way that is both profound and important, to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer is able to stand up and say, “These are dollars that are being well spent.” Therefore, I challenge the committee as well to look at the bill from that lens to ensure that we have an effective use of Canadian dollars as we promote human rights and as we defend our world against corruption. Transparency, accountability, parliamentary engagement, inter-agency co-operation and information are all things that could add costs but that could also be very effective and could be part of a tool box that would both be effective and save taxpayer money.

One section of the bill that, very frankly, I am less familiar with, because it is not in my wheelhouse, is the Broadcasting Act section. However, I understand, as we all do, that media is critical and important in the promotion of human rights. The broadcasting-related provision of Bill C-219 seeks to curtail the proliferation of broadcast content from licensed broadcasters found to be susceptible to influence from foreign actors, foreign persons or foreign entities, especially ones who have committed genocide or are under Canadian sanctions. This is something we all agree on. However, we want to test all the recommendations in the bill, which would become law, to ensure that they would actually accomplish this while preserving the freedom of the press.

In conclusion, we are eager for further debate on Bill C-219. We are ready to take it to committee. We want to support the member in his aspirations to look at the bill, but we also challenge and commend the committee to do its due diligence on the bill, to find out the way a parliamentary committee can make it more effective, to make it better to defend human rights and better to fight corruption, and to make it effective and sustainable to attack not only today's issues, but tomorrow's issues. This would be a piece of legislation that will last, so we want to make sure it is fit for purpose not only for today, but also for tomorrow.

Again, I want to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his ongoing co-operation and conversation about the bill. I look forward to getting it to committee and having all members of the House, through their committee, be sure to make it the most effective bill possible.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to be able to give this speech this evening because what I have to say is very important to me.

Since the new Parliament began, many of my colleagues in the House will certainly have noticed, as I have, that the importance of parliamentary and committee work seems of little interest to the Prime Minister of Canada. He seems far too busy meeting with leaders of what I would call dubious countries, to put it politely, including China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

In the meantime, parliamentarians are working hard in committee to improve bills or collaborate on drafting reports and recommendations, often involving complex files, based on testimony that is frequently heart-wrenching or hard to hear. On this point, I am thinking more specifically of the colleagues I have the honour to serve with on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights or my friends on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, with whom I recently studied Bill C-3 on lost Canadians, and whose amendments, though supported by the majority of committee members, were defeated once they arrived in the House.

Today, I feel I must highlight the importance of the work carried out by parliamentarians in committee. I know that this aspect of our work requires thoroughness, precision and, above all, a willingness to collaborate and improve things. Unfortunately, as we know, committee proceedings are not the most exciting thing to watch on television. However, committees are where the most important work is done for the future. Committee work has a concrete impact on people's lives.

Unfortunately, as I said at the outset, I do not believe that this government fully understands the legislative implications or the scope of the work involved. Without wanting to make puns like my Conservative friends do, who cares about committee work? That is probably what the Prime Minister would say. I say this because, while the bill before us today incorporates several aspects of Bill C‑281, some elements are quite different.

Bill C-219 was introduced by our Conservative colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. I would like to send him my thoughts because he is an extraordinary person and a pleasure to work with, and he is going through some difficult times these days. Bill C-219 is similar in some ways to Bill C-281, which died on the Order Paper in the Senate after receiving unanimous support in the House of Commons at third reading, including support from the Bloc Québécois.

As I was saying, Bill C-219 incorporates some aspects of Bill C-281, but with a few significant differences. Committee work will therefore be essential—as I think my Liberal colleagues have said—to verify the scope and impact of the bill and to propose amendments as necessary. More specifically, as my colleague from Jonquière mentioned in a question earlier, I am thinking that the request to publish the names and status of political prisoners may not sit well with immediate family members for a number of obvious reasons. For example, a family could be afraid of reprisals from the country in question and could be totally opposed to making the information publicly available. This point was raised by the Bloc Québécois during the study of Bill C-281.

The bill also introduces the concept of transnational repression, a request that was also made by the Bloc Québécois. We even included it in our election platform. I would like to thank my colleague, the sponsor of the bill, for including this concept in his bill. It is extremely important and it is certainly very timely. The world is changing at breakneck speed, and transnational repression is happening here, in Quebec and Canada. My Uyghur friends, my Tibetan friends, my friends from Taiwan, my friends from Hong Kong will attest to that. It is pretty obvious. In that sense, what would this bill actually do?

Bill C‑219 amends several laws, including the Sergei Magnitsky Law, to provide that “transnational repression be sanctioned”, which is very positive, and that “visas or other documents must not be issued to immediate family members of a foreign national who is the subject of an order or regulation”. The enactment amends the Special Economic Measures Act to change that act's long title and shorten it to the “Sergei Magnitsky Global Sanctions Act”. Mr. Magnitsky wound up in a Moscow prison where he was tortured for 358 days for alleged tax evasion. He succumbed to untreated pancreatitis in a grim way in 2009 at the age of 38.

The bill proposes a definition of “prisoner of conscience”. It reads as follows:

an individual who, in contravention of international human rights standards, has been detained or otherwise physically restricted solely because of their identity or their conscientiously held beliefs, including religious or political beliefs.

As I said earlier, the bill also adds a definition for transnational repression. I want to reiterate that this was a Bloc Québécois proposal made during the last election campaign. Since we have fewer members that can introduce bills, we appreciate when our colleagues incorporate our ideas into theirs.

The bill defines “transnational repression” as follows:

tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders or physically harm such individuals or members of such groups, including elected officials, political dissidents, human rights defenders, exiled journalists, diaspora communities, civil society activists and refugees, for the purpose of silencing dissent and stifling activism.

As I speak these words in the House, I am thinking of several members of various communities who, here in this very place, day after day, week after week, bear the burden of foreign repression, of transnational repression. They are human rights defenders, refugees and civil society activists. These people, who were once acquaintances, have now become friends. I do not want to identify them by name, but I know for a fact that they know who they are. I am thinking of people who care deeply about democracy and justice and who, simply because they believe in a better future for their loved ones, are subjected to intimidation, harassment, threats and even imprisonment and torture.

I am thinking of people like Jimmy Lai, a human rights defender who has become a prominent figure in the fight for freedom and democracy. Right now, Mr. Lai, who is 77 years old, is languishing in appalling conditions in a Hong Kong prison. His crime was that he supported journalism and freedom of the press. Obviously, my thoughts are with his son, Sebastien, to whom I once again express my solidarity.

Repression can be insidious, so insidious that it can be hard to see at times. Anyone who encourages repression must be held accountable for their actions. Bill S‑219 therefore adds something to the legislation. It adds the fact that sanctions can be imposed in cases of transnational repression. The bill would also force the minister to respond to a parliamentary motion calling for sanctions against a corrupt foreign leader.

This means that I, along with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, will support Bill C‑219 introduced by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. While the provisions of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act both allow for targeted sanctions, only the Special Economic Measures Act is currently used for this purpose. The Sergei Magnitsky Law has not been used to implement targeted sanctions since 2018. My colleague's bill also helps reignite discussions on this subject, which I think is extremely positive.

I will conclude my speech by commending my colleague's work and confirming that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑219, which will, however, have to be studied in committee. We will be thorough and we will collaborate, as usual. I am more than ready to work with my colleagues. This bill is likely to be studied by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, of which I am a member. We will be there. I believe this is a bill that can truly make a difference and have a real impact on people who are fighting for the freedom of their loved ones.

I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to deliver this speech tonight.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, from my days as an adviser for the Harper government to today, I have had the privilege of working alongside the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on several files, observing first-hand his steadfast commitment to human rights, accountability and the rule of law. Throughout his career, he has consistently demonstrated a deep understanding of international affairs, a tireless work ethic and a principled approach to defending Canadian values. I have seen it up front as we walked the cobblestone streets of Kyiv amid jubilant protesters, and then later amid burned buildings and the same stones ripped from the ground in self-defence.

He does not act for political convenience; he acts with clarity, conviction and a sense of responsibility to Canadians and those whose freedoms are imperilled. To stand with him on this legislation not only recognizes the urgency of the issue before us, but also honours the dedication and leadership he brings before this House. He has championed measures to protect Canadians and to confront the very real threat posed by authoritarian regimes that seek to project their influence into our own communities. This bill would enable the Canadian government to confront, in addition to human rights abusers, dictator corruption and transnational repression.

Across our country, people who have fled persecution and violence rightly expect to be safe. They expect their homes to be sanctuaries, free from the nightmare of the dictator they now deny, yet reports show that authoritarian regimes are following their citizens into Canada to intimidate, to coerce and to silence them. This is real; it is ongoing.

Current laws have not kept up with the tactics of these regimes. Bill C-219 provides clarity, accountability and enforcement mechanisms. It would prevent Canada from being used as a safe haven by individuals responsible for corruption and human rights abuses.

Let me cover three parts of this issue in my remarks: the context, why this legislation is critical and our duty as parliamentarians.

Sergei Magnitsky was tortured to death for exposing Kremlin corruption and, from his grave, gave the free world its most potent weapon against the new authoritarians: targeted sanctions that strike the torturers, the kleptocrats and their enablers where it hurts most, their bank accounts and their visas.

Today, the long arm of Beijing, Tehran, Moscow and their proxies reach into Canada itself. There are death threats, bounties, covert police stations and intimidation of dissidents, all on our soil. This is not mere crime; this is transnational repression, the export of tyranny into the heart of the free world.

Thanks to the persistence over a decade by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, we already had established human rights violations as Magnitsky powers almost a decade ago. We must now sharpen them into a dedicated tool to confront transnational repression with swift, automatic and merciless consequences for any regime that dares hunt its critics on Canadian streets.

In the Cold War, we drew a line and said “not one inch further”. Today, we must say the same. Canada will never be a hunting ground for dictators. We will find them, we will freeze their assets and we will make them pay.

Magnitsky's story is not simply a tale of courage; it is a reminder that one person armed with the truth can expose an entire system of lies. His murder was meant to frighten others into silence, but instead it triggered an international movement that forced democracies to confront a hard question about themselves: Do we still believe in moral consequence, or are we willing to let power excuse anything?

That is what makes today's debate more than a matter of policy. It is a statement about who Canadians choose to be in an age when authoritarian regimes think the world has grown too tired, too distracted or too divided to stand up to them. Our answer must be calm, clear and confident. Canada will not retreat from its role as a defender of those who risk everything to speak truth in countries where truth is treated as a crime.

We cannot talk about this without talking about the world we now live in, a world in which authoritarians are emboldened by new technologies. What once required secret agents crossing borders now only requires a phone, a television, a consulate or a proxy group operating quietly in our communities. Transnational repression is not abstract theory. It is happening in cities across the country, and it targets the people who trusted Canada to give them what their homelands denied them: safety, a voice and freedom.

If authoritarian states can reach into our cities to intimidate their critics, then we no longer control the space we claim as our own. That is why the response cannot be symbolic or slow; it must be predictable enough that dictators understand the cost before they act and swift enough that victims understand they are not alone.

Renaming the Special Economic Measures Act to the Sergei Magnitsky global sanctions act is part of that clarity. There is power in naming something after a man who died telling the truth. It signals that the purpose of the law is not hidden behind technical language or bureaucratic jargon; it is a law built around a moral line that should never have been blurred. The name teaches every Canadian what the law stands for and tells every authoritarian what it means when Canada acts.

The Cold War had a clarity that many in our era have forgotten. It drew a line between the world of fear and the world of freedom. Today the battle lines are not marked on maps, but they are just as real. They run through the phones of dissidents who receive threats at midnight. They run through the inboxes of activists who are told their families back home will suffer. They run through the hearts of communities of people who came to Canada believing they had escaped the regime, only to find that the regime had followed them here.

If we do not draw a line now, we teach these regimes that Canada can be bent, that our values can be shaped by intimidation, and that our borders are something they can violate. This is why we strengthen Magnitsky powers. This is why we direct them at transnational repression. This is why we sharpen the law into something that cannot be evaded with excuses or hidden behind diplomatic language.

Magnitsky's legacy is not only about his death; it is about the world that responded to it. Democracies came together because they recognized that a system that allows corruption, torture and murder to flourish unchallenged is a system that eventually threatens us all. The legislation before the House carries that same spirit; it connects the struggle of one man in a Moscow prison to the safety of a Canadian family in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary or Montreal.

When we act, we are not only honouring Magnitsky's courage but also reminding the world that Canada is not passive in the face of cruelty. We are reminding people who fled oppression that this country takes their safety seriously, and we are reminding people who inflict oppression that they will face consequences even if they believe their borders protect them. This is the heart of the legislation: a line drawn clearly, without drama and without hesitation, a country's stating that its sovereignty is not for negotiation and its people are not for intimidation.

Transnational repression is a direct threat to the safety and dignity of people living here in Canada. It is carried out by regimes in Beijing, the Kremlin, Tehran and beyond. Our intelligence community documents that these governments have conducted operations across Canada, including intimidation; surveillance; harassment of activists, students and journalists; and persecution of diaspora communities. Whether people are Sikh, Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Jew, and whether they come from Hong Kong, the Donbass, Tibet or East Turkestan, or are among the Iranians who stand against their regime, all who come here to live in freedom now must contend with the designs of the dictators they fled.

Immediate family members of the very people we have sanctioned have lived in luxury in Canada while their relatives engage in corruption, theft or violent repression abroad. The tragedy of flight PS752 is a stark example. Families of the victims have waited years for compensation, despite frozen regime assets that could have been used to provide justice.

Russian assets could and should be directed to supporting Ukraine in its defence. Frozen funds should contribute to justice and accountability for people whose war for existence is waged this very day.

When foreign governments intimidate or threaten individuals on Canadian soil, it is not only a violation of the rights of the people affected but also a test of the strength of our laws and our institutions. Bill C-219 would ensure that Canada responds firmly, transparently and consistently. To people who have sought refuge in Canada, to those who live in fear of foreign regimes, and to Canadians who expect their government to defend their sovereignty, the bill would deliver clarity, protection and accountability.

It is now the responsibility of the House to act. Support for Bill C-219 is support for the rule of law, for victims of oppression and for Canada as a safe and principled country. May the bill not be a partisan one but pass as a parliamentary one instead.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill.

For generations, people around the world have looked at Canada as a champion of human rights, of democratic values and of the international rules-based order. These principles define who we are as Canadians, but they also help keep us safe. They protect our sovereignty and security, and they shape how we engage with the world.

Today, as we consider Bill C-219, we are examining how Canada can continue to confront authoritarian aggression, defend human rights and protect those who are targeted by oppressive regimes, whether they live abroad or within our own borders here in Canada.

We are having this debate at a time when the global landscape has changed dramatically. Russia's unjust and illegal war on Ukraine is one of the clearest examples of why effective modern sanctions tools are so important. Throughout the brutal invasion, Russia is attempting to eliminate Ukraine as a sovereign nation. The invasion has been marked by mass atrocities, forced deportations of Ukrainian children to Russia, political repression, transnational intimidation of diaspora communities here at home, deliberate destruction of Ukraine's culture and identity, and more.

Canada has responded by deploying one of the strongest sanction regimes in the world to hold those who are responsible accountable. Canada has responded with concrete action, not just with sanctions, but with military, financial and humanitarian support to Ukraine to help Ukraine defend itself and help hold Russia accountable.

Since 2022, Canada has committed over $22 billion in support for Ukraine. I want to outline some of the support we have provided, because I think it is really important.

We have provided about $6.5 billion in military assistance. This includes air defence missiles, M777 howitzers, Leopard 2 tanks, drones, armoured vehicles and other critical equipment.

Canada's military training mission, Operation Unifier, has trained more than 44,000 Ukrainian soldiers, and over 300 Canadian Armed Forces members remain deployed in support of this mission. When I think about 44,000 Ukrainians who have been trained and prepared to fight to defend their country by Canada, it makes me proud. Canada has also committed $389 million to train Ukrainian F-16 fighter pilots and more than $140 million to support Ukraine's domestic drone production.

On the financial side, Canada has provided over $12.4 billion in direct financial assistance, which is the highest contribution of financial aid per capita of any country in the world. This includes more than $6.75 billion in loans through the IMF, $500 million in direct bilateral loans, Canada's $5-billion contribution to the G7's new extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine and much more. Canada has also played a leadership role in strengthening Ukraine's economy and long-term resilience, including with the modernization and parliamentary ratification of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

These are some of the things we have done to support the people of Ukraine since 2022. It is not an exhaustive list, but my point is that Canada is a global leader in supporting Ukraine on a number of fronts, with financial, military and humanitarian aid, diplomatic support and a whole range of measures.

There are also sanctions. Since 2022, Canada has sanctioned nearly 2,300 people and more than 1,000 entities in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. In total, about 4,900 people and entities are currently sanctioned under Canada's autonomous sanctions laws. These actions matter; they really do. They restrict financial networks, freeze assets and signal that Canada will not tolerate violations of international law. They also impose consequences on those who violate human rights and the international rules-based order that protects countries around the world and protects Canada's sovereignty and security.

I outline this because it shows the scale of the challenge before us and the importance of sanctions as one of the tools in Canada's response to authoritarian aggression of any kind. Bill C-219 speaks directly to this. Its intent, I believe, is to strengthen Canada's sanctions framework, improve accountability and modernize the tools we use to confront human rights abuses and authoritarian influence.

I want to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill for bringing these important issues forward. There is much in this bill that I believe deserves careful consideration.

Bill C-219 proposes some important and necessary changes that I believe are important for Canada to make. The bill proposes adding transnational repression, for example, as a trigger for sanctions under both the Special Economic Measures Act and the Magnitsky act. This is increasingly important. Around the world we see regimes harassing, threatening or even attacking dissidents living abroad, including here in Canada. Russia, Iran, China and others are using these tactics to intimidate communities, suppress free expression and extend their reach beyond their borders. Canada must have the tools to respond decisively.

I believe there are ways that Bill C-219 could go even further on transnational repression by broadening the scope of this provision to include additional triggers. The bill suggests that it would strengthen enforcement by increasing penalties for sanction violations and improving information sharing between the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the RCMP and FINTRAC. On its face, these would be constructive steps that I believe align with Canada's intention to combat corruption, cut off illicit funding flows and protect the integrity of our democratic institutions.

The bill would update the long and short titles under the Special Economic Measures Act to better reflect the seriousness of the threats we face. These changes bring greater coherence to our legal framework and mirror developments in the approaches taken by many of our allies. These elements reflect good intention and respond to some very important global challenges.

There are, however, important concerns that some folks have, that some of my colleagues have and that I have with what is proposed in Bill C-219. It is our duty as parliamentarians, every time a bill is brought forward, to examine carefully whether every aspect of the bill is workable and responsible. There are elements in the bill that, as currently drafted, may undermine public safety or hinder the effectiveness of the very sanctions on regimes that the bill seeks to strengthen.

First, the requirement for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to publish a detailed public list of what are called “prisoners of conscience”, including the number of access requests and foreign responses, raises some important risks that we really need to consider. Publicizing sensitive information about detained individuals could jeopardize diplomatic efforts to secure their release. Many governments that arbitrarily detain dissidents retaliate on those people when information becomes public or when those governments are publicly shamed. I do understand the intent behind this provision. However, I hope that, through working with colleagues and all parties across the House, we can achieve a result that shines a spotlight on important cases while protecting the safety of the human rights defenders and Canada's ongoing work to secure their release through various channels. I look forward to continuing this work and these conversations with colleagues in the months ahead.

The bill would also place new operational requirements on the RCMP and FINTRAC. From my perspective, it is important that we reflect on this and examine it. Before we impose new duties, it is important we make sure that these things are actually feasible, that they are executable and implementable, and that they do not compromise existing enforcement requirements or responsibilities. Several provisions would impose rigid procedural timelines or require actions that do not align with the machinery of how government works today or with ministerial authorities. These issues are fixable, but it is important that we reflect on them. They may require amendments to ensure that the bill is practical, enforceable and consistent with our existing laws and statutory requirements.

Additionally, on the proposed changes to the Broadcasting Act intended to prevent foreign influence from sanctioned states, we have to be careful that the language is drafted carefully to avoid thresholds or unintended impacts on media freedom and have the bill achieve what the member is trying to achieve, the intent of which I, of course, support.

None of the concerns I have raised detract from the core purpose of the bill. In fact, they reinforce the importance of getting this right, and that is what I want to do. The global context makes modernization of sanctions important, but getting it right through our work in committee and working with all parliamentarians to make the necessary amendments is critical.

Let me be clear: I support the intent of the bill. I think we support the intent of the bill. We support strengthening sanctions, improving accountability and standing firmly with those who are targeted by oppression, whether they are in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world. However, we have to ensure that the bill achieves its goals without endangering prisoners, putting in place requirements on enforcement agencies that cannot be executed or creating legal frameworks that do not work in practice. At the end of the day, we want this to be effective, and we want it to work. That is what I would like to achieve.

The next stage of committee study will allow MPs to examine each provision in detail, to hear from experts and to reflect on how we can improve the bill. I am looking forward to that and to working with the member opposite and all colleagues in the House to make our sanctions regime even stronger so we can continue to protect human rights and protect our security and the safety of Canadians.

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

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Safety

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, does “Peace, Order, and good Government” have a familiar ring? It is in the Constitution Act, 1867, and that was just part of what Canada was: A place where there was order, good government and peace. Compared to the big, bad U.S.A. and its wild frontier, we had stability in Canada.

What have we become after 10 years of the Liberal government? The motto should now be “crime, chaos and failing government”.

Why do I say that? In the past 10 years, violent crime has gone up 54% and sexual assaults are up 75%. The focus of my comments, referring to the question I had during question period, is on extortion, and it is up a lot.

What is extortion? It is the threat of violence to get cash; it is the classic shakedown of businesses and individuals to get them to pay up. It is not just threats; it is following up on the threats to business with violence, arson, shootings, beatings or killings. We see it in the gangster movies in New York City, in The Godfather or Mafia!, but I am not talking about New York City in the 1930s or 1940s; I am talking about Canada now.

Extortion is up 330% across Canada, and in B.C., where I am from, it is up nearly 500%. My community of Maple Ridge is a beautiful community and a beautiful part of the world, but we even have it right there. The paper reported just last week that a home that had already been targeted was shot at again in the middle of the night. The residence is associated with an individual connected with the Punjabi music industry. There had been extortion threats in the past, and the person had fled the country. In the neighbourhood, they are still wondering; there is still that disruption, insecurity and fear for the surrounding families.

In the same 24 hours, Surrey saw two separate incidents. A residence tied to a Punjabi music producer was once again targeted, and a Surrey industrial business was targeted twice in two days: The suspects poured gasoline on vehicles and, hours later, shot up the property while workers were present.

These types of events used to shock us and used to be rare. Now, they are becoming disturbingly familiar across B.C. This should not be normal; it must not be acceptable, and it is not the Canada that Canadians deserve. Police departments have raised the alarm. Community leaders have cried out for help, and victims have been asking for immediate help.

What have the Liberals been doing? They have tinkered around the edges, defended policies that are clearly not working and refused to confront the legislative choices that have helped to create this crisis.

Extortion is not just a crime; it is a cloud of tar over public safety. Victims live in constant fear unless their perpetrators, all of them, are behind bars, which is a process that can take years. The Liberals are more interested in bail, not jail, as opposed to Conservatives, who want to put them behind bars to keep our public safe, which is our first priority.

The Liberals continue to defend the very legislation that helped create this situation. Bill C-5 eliminated mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes, including extortion with a firearm. Bill C-75 imposed the principle of restraint in bail decisions, resulting in repeat violent offenders' returning to the streets far too easily. This is a pattern we cannot ignore.

Conservatives have brought forward clear, practical solutions that the Liberals have voted down repeatedly. We proposed restoring mandatory minimums of three years for extortion, four years when firearms are involved and five years when connected to organized crime. We proposed bail reform, stronger border protections and measures to support police and protect victims.

Conservatives will not stand by while Canadians lose the right to feel safe in their homes. We will fight to restore mandatory minimums for gun crimes and violent offenders. We will fight to pass our anti-extortion bill. We will demand a repeal of Trudeau's laws so that public safety is first. Canadians deserve better. Conservatives care, and Conservatives will deliver on public safety.

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

Madam Speaker, it was interesting hearing the member's comments when he talked about the issue of extortion. The first thing that comes to my mind is, really? The Conservatives have an opportunity to deal with the issue of extortion, and what is their response to it? In one word it is a filibuster. We have provinces, stakeholders and law enforcement officers all getting behind Bill C-14, and there are substantive actions in the legislation the Government of Canada has on the Order Paper today.

We have legislation before us today that deals with extortion, and the Conservative response to it is to not let it pass. We had to shame them into getting the bail reform legislation to the committee stage. The member does not have to tell me about extortion. I am very much aware of the issue. I know the impact it is having on our communities. Several areas of the country are special targets for extortion.

This is the reason we have been standing up on it. I have stood up on numerous occasions trying to convince the Conservatives to recognize the efforts of law enforcement officers, premiers and the Prime Minister, who made a commitment, an election platform commitment, to deal with bail reform legislation. Within that legislation, there is a direct reference to consequences with respect to extortion, repeat offenders and so forth.

We then hear members stand up and say they want this and they want that. I understand that the Conservative Party uses the whole crime file as a fundraiser. I have received many fundraising letters myself from the Conservative Party, and they are all asking for more money based on the issue of crime. I do not know how I got on that mailing list.

The reality is that those in the Conservative Party look at the crime file and ask, “How do we generate money?” It is all self-serving, because when it comes time to do something, they are found wanting. I have likely even asked the member who posed the question today, a very good chance, what his personal opinion was on getting Bill C-14 passed before the end of the year. I have asked this of many Conservative MPs. I have encouraged the opposition to get behind substantive legislation that political parties of all stripes at different provincial levels are behind, and I have asked them to support it, but it is falling on deaf ears.

If they had not been shamed into allowing Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation, to go to committee, we would still be debating it. If the member wants to have peace, order and good government, he needs to look at supporting that.

Canada is not broken. The Conservatives will talk about crime—

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

The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, this would be a joke if it were not so sad. We would think the Conservatives have been the ones in power for the past 10 years, when this has been on the Liberals' shoulders. It is their laws that have brought this chaos we are in. Now the parliamentary secretary says to look at what they are saying and what they are doing. They talk and talk. That is what we are hearing, a bit of talk. I guess it is a step up from not talking about it. They are at least talking about it.

Every measure we have brought forward over the past 10 years has been shut down by the Liberals. They have not been concerned about this issue. Now, when they are concerned about a few seats, they are starting to get into the act by saying a few words.

As for where extortion is going to go, I do not see it going very far with the Liberal government, because it is not serious about public safety, as much as it might pretend to be. All the—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me remind the member that the Prime Minister and the government were elected back on April 28. We had extensive consultations working with the provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies and others. We have the legislation here today. All we need is the Conservative Party to recognize that and help us fight crime by passing these two pieces of legislation. That is all we have to do.

We have a new Prime Minister, who made a commitment in the last federal election, a platform commitment, on bail reform legislation. The only thing holding it up is the Conservative Party of Canada. Its members are more concerned about fundraising than they are about servicing the needs of Canadians. If they could only change the channel and start focusing on our communities, we would be able to deal with some of these repeat offenders. We would be able to deal with issues like extortion. They need to smarten up and allow the legislation to pass.

Border Security

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to imagine with me for a moment perhaps something unthinkable: that he or someone he knows is in a terrible car accident. We hope that would never happen to any member of the House or, in fact, any Canadian. Thankfully, in this unfortunate situation, the parliamentary secretary is extricated from his vehicle, loaded into an ambulance and taken to the nearest emergency room. Unfortunately, when he gets to the emergency room door, there is a sign saying that it is closed until further notice.

It is not hyperbole to say that this is what is happening at our border every week. Our border systems, which are critical for moving goods, food, medicine and essentials for Canadians every week, are now experiencing an unprecedented number of technical difficulties and outages. In fact, there was an outage on Monday, one on Tuesday, and if members can believe, there is an outage going on right now. It started at 2:56 p.m. this afternoon, and as of just a moment ago, before I got up to speak, it was still ongoing. The CBSA states that it is “actively working to resolve this issue, but we currently do not have an estimated time for its resolution.” We cannot make this up.

The Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association has been keeping track and says that the border is now experiencing one outage every week at least. These are not maintenance outages, but unplanned outages that are shutting the border down. What this means in practice is that goods cannot be cleared for import and goods cannot be cleared for export. There was a multi-day standstill at the border at the end of September, and the border came to a near complete standstill. Critical goods needed for just-in-time delivery were not delivered, and food and other perishables were not delivered, costing untold millions in lost time, productivity and delays.

The Private Motor Truck Council of Canada said, “the current situation is untenable and needs to be rectified in short order.” Likewise, the Canadian Trucking Alliance said, “We simply cannot have the movement of thousands of trucks come to a crawl at international border crossings, while giving another signal to the international business community that Canada is not open for business”.

My questions for the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader are these: What is causing the high frequency of these outages? Why are they continuing to happen? When will they end?

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

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are times when it can be very difficult to provide the type of answers the member is looking for.

We have a very competent and able bureaucracy that has the technical expertise to get things running in a form that ultimately will serve all of us well.

I do not know the details of what the member has just made reference to, but what I do know is that the federal government, not only over the years but in particular under the current Prime Minister, has made commitments to add further strength to our CBSA. We are doing that by saying that we are going to continue not only to provide financial support but also to add personnel. I believe the number is 1,000 CBSA personnel being added to our borders. That will go a long way in dealing with a number of the issues.

I would remind the member opposite, who is new to the House of Commons, that when I was in opposition, sitting not too far from where he is sitting, in a different building but with the same setup, it was Stephen Harper's government, and the current leader of the Conservative Party sat in cabinet when that government cut back border control services. There were significant cuts. I suspect that they had not only an immediate impact but also a long-term impact.

We should be concerned about our border, as the Prime Minister has stressed and as Liberal members have stressed the importance of trade. As the member pointed out, there is a great deal, hundreds of millions of dollars' worth, of trade going back and forth across the border. There are companies that rely on deliveries to arrive on time. I am very sensitive to this, and that is why I am pleased that we are continuing not only to invest but also to add where we can to ensure that we have better security at our border. Hopefully we can see more progress on the whole trade file.

In the long run, we will have more trade than we have even today and have had over the last number of years. Trade continues to grow between Canada and the United States, and we need a good, functional border on our side and also on the U.S. side, as I am sure the Americans also run into problems at times. The end goal is to make it efficient in order to make sure we are able to accommodate all the trade and commerce, as well as to hopefully at some point get tourism back up. I am hoping that will happen when we get the trade agreement finally signed off, as we continue to push for the best trade agreement and not just settle it for the sake of time.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's attempt at an answer. However, I want him to focus on the future and not on ancient history. He might be trying to blame John A. Macdonald next for not building the railroad fast enough.

Let us talk about what the government is doing, and what it is failing to do, at the border. I am not talking about new border officers; I am talking about the electronic systems that make trade flow. One of the problems with CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, in this situation, is its utter lack of transparency on the issue. I have heard it again and again from the trade community in Canada. I asked the public safety minister in a written question to provide details of the border outages, and the response I got, signed by the government House leader, was that the government does not keep track; it does not know.

How can the government identify the problem and fix it if it does not even have the data to understand that problem?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as technology continues to grow, things actually do change. Hopefully we are moving in a direction where we will see more tracking of information. Information is vital. At the end of the day, we have hard numbers in terms of the amount of trade that takes place, though we might not necessarily know what is in everything that enters into Canada. We have a system in place to protect safety. We have excellent CBSA officers who are on the ground to ensure that the things that are coming into Canada are legal.

When it comes to overall trade, if there are enhancements that the member believes we can make, he should say so. He should be specific. Is he saying we should grow the bureaucracy more, or we should be spending more money in that area? He might be in a minority—

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

The hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.

Housing

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, back in the spring, I asked the housing minister an important question. I pointed out to him that what has happened under the government over the last 10 years is that Canada has become a country where there are just two kinds of families: families that already own real estate and families that have given up hope of ever owning real estate. That is because for young people today, the only path to home ownership is their parents: their parents' ability to share their equity, to give them large amounts of money for down payments and/or to co-sign for loans. A generation of Canadians has given up on home ownership, and that is what the government has presided over.

The minister himself is, of course, a homeowner and a real estate investor. He was also the mayor of Vancouver when it was one of our most unaffordable cities and one of the most unaffordable places on this entire planet. The response we got was not very helpful.

The government has presided over real estate prices doubling and rents doubling, while productivity and per capita GDP have remained unchanged over a 10-year period. People's ability to cover the cost of living, including housing, is no better than it was 10 years ago, while rents and prices have doubled.

It was not the housing minister who responded; it was the House leader, and in his response, he made vague claims of building hundreds of thousands of homes. Since that response and since the commitments the Liberals made during the election about housing construction, pre-sales of the homes in Canada's two most expensive markets, Vancouver and Toronto, have utterly collapsed.

We heard about this at the finance committee. Pre-sales on condominium properties in Toronto are down 93% year over year. Think about that for a minute. When pre-sales collapse with a 93% drop, future housing starts are going to collapse. Without pre-sales today, there will be no financing and no construction in the years ahead.

We are being set up right now in our most stressed housing markets for an utter collapse of housing construction at a time when Canadians cannot afford homes and need access to housing. We are in a market where sellers and builders cannot sell at the current cost of material and at current prices. They cannot build and make a profit. However, buyers cannot afford the prices in existing markets.

We certainly need far more homes for supply, but the only way we are going to get out of this jam is to unleash the Canadian economy and have productivity increase. When it comes to productivity, we are at the bottom of the G7 and the bottom of the OECD. Until we unleash the Canadian economy by getting rid of all the laws the Liberals have passed to prevent oil and gas development, for example, or by getting major projects built that can allow us to get our energy to market, we are not going to have the productivity to grow into the unaffordable housing market that has come in under the last 10 years of the government.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that when we think of housing as a policy issue, it is only in the last number of years that we have actually had a government that has recognized that there is a federal role to play on the housing file. Prior to Justin Trudeau becoming the Prime Minister, during the previous 10 to 15 years, there was very little footprint on the housing file. The member talks about a housing shortage or the cost of housing, but he has been around for a while. He knows that even 10 years ago or 15 years ago, people were saying that there were children living in homes and that they were having a difficult time being able to purchase a home in certain areas of the country.

In other areas of the country, I can tell us that, right now, one can buy a beautiful condo in Winnipeg for under $150,000. We need to look at what we can actually get out there and get the support from the different levels of government.

The Conservative Party's approach to housing seems to be to just stand back, do nothing, maybe do some talking and be very critical, whereas the government has continued to work with the different stakeholders, the provinces, municipalities, private industry and non-profit groups. We are looking at how we can enhance programs for Habitat for Humanity. We are looking at ways in which we can support the growth of housing co-ops, other forms of non-profits, with provinces, and shelter relief programs, as well as supporting the private sector.

A good example of that would be the GST exemption for first-time homebuyers, which is actually incorporated in legislation that we have brought forward. We have a government that has actually taken an approach, particularly the Prime Minister's approach, to have Build Canada Homes.

It is like what happened after the war, when the Government of Canada got engaged, in a very real and tangible way, and saw exceptional growth in the housing industry, in the building of homes. That is what we are seeing from the current Prime Minister, who recognizes the problem. We have to realize that he has been Prime Minister for only about eight months. It takes time. We have a program in place, and all the Conservatives do is say that it is bad. They say to just open the market, to get out of the way.

We are committed. We have both feet in to try to build more homes, and we are looking at doubling the numbers, for hundreds of thousands of new homes.

Contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party. The member knows that the leader of the Conservative Party was actually the minister of housing at one time. Canadians would be shocked to find out how many homes he built when he was the minister of housing. I barely need two hands: It was six. I still do not know where those homes are, but I am told he built six homes, not by himself physically, but as a minister, he supported six homes being built. Does that not knock our socks off?

At the end of the day, again, it is a contrast. The Conservatives stand back and say they do not have to participate. They have demonstrated that. Their leader says that. Many of the Conservative MPs believe that. We believe that we need to work with people, work with governments and make things happen. The Prime Minister is going to do just that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member, in his speech, suggested that perhaps I have been around long enough to know a bit about the history of housing affordability in Canada. He is right. I spent 22 years in the mortgage business before I became a member of Parliament. I am quite aware of affordability and how it impacts families.

What I know is that before the government took office, wages and per capita GDP were rising. This is during the years of the Harper government, which included the current Leader of the Opposition. Wages were rising. The affordability of housing and the ability of Canadians to service debt and to buy homes and to afford rent were keeping pace. We had the construction of housing in those years. Everything has changed over the past 10 years, in which the government has allowed our productivity to fall into the—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to compare credentials, I have been a parliamentarian, much like the leader of the official opposition, for many years. In fact, in 1988, I was the housing critic in the province of Manitoba. I talked a lot about infill houses. I talked, back then, about co-ops. In fact, I used to be on a housing co-op myself. I understood the important role of non-profits, but I also understood the importance of private development and promotions.

I understand the housing industry, maybe from a different perspective than the member opposite, but I do know that, if we want an explosion of housing construction going forward, we need to see the federal government get, at least in part, behind it. We have a leadership role to play. The Prime Minister knows that. He has recognized that, and we are stepping up as a government because we want to make it happen for Canadians.

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

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:15 p.m.)