Debates of Nov. 26th, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the incredible work he does on behalf of the great people he represents.

The United States and Europe are obsessed with building critical economic and energy infrastructure, not just the stuff to extract from the ground but also stuff to provide value to it and then export it abroad. Canada cannot get its act together on the basic number of projects it must approve, while the United States and the European Union are moving ahead at lightning speed with pipelines, ports, rail, road and everything else that is needed.

That is the kind of determination our government needs to bring. That is the kind of determination the government has never delivered.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is it a time to invest or a time to be frugal? Maybe the right answer is that it is a bit of both.

First, we are in the fortunate financial position of being able to invest, create jobs, build infrastructure and stimulate the economy. According to the IMF, Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio in 2025, if we look at all levels of government, is by far the best in the G7. In addition, our deficit-to-GDP ratio is second only to that of Japan. As a result, the director of the IMF has said that Canada and Germany alone in the G7 are in the fiscal position to be able to invest in order to spur the economy, in what is otherwise a time of global economic downturn.

Our government also wants to decrease spending while at the same time investing more. We want to invest in order to create jobs, both directly and indirectly. We want to invest in building local infrastructure for things like roads, sewage and water, in order to build the homes Canadians need and want. We also need investment in road, rail and ports so we can efficiently get goods to market, which is increasingly important as our best trade partners have enacted all of their trade barriers. The budget projects that our capital investments will rise to nearly $60 billion in 2030, nearly double the $32 billion this year.

Let us talk about some of the investments I like and that are good for my riding. Over 10 years, $51 billion will go toward the build communities strong fund to build local infrastructure. I will certainly try to use this money to build some of the things I would like built in my riding, for example, Fort William First Nation's chronic care home and a toll-free bridge between International Falls and Fort Frances. I would also really like some of the money to go toward things like hockey rinks. I, like a lot of Canadians, spend the winter watching my kids play hockey and drinking Tim Hortons coffee in aging arenas that need upkeep.

Ports are also important. Thunder Bay is a port city, and as my favourite teacher in high school used to say, we owe our existence to the fact that we are an entrepot, which means a place where goods go from rail and trucks to boats, or vice versa. I am happy to say that the budget provides $5 billion to create the trade diversification corridors fund, which is money for ports, rail and roads.

On a related note, the budget announced over $600 million for CBSA. This is in addition to the previous $1.3 billion, and it allows CBSA to hire 1,000 new officers, which will in turn allow it to open new custom facilities in a number of ports along the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway. Currently, the only port on the seaway that allows customs clearance of container traffic is the port of Montreal, which creates a bottleneck: Boats go from Europe to Montreal in 10 days and then may end up waiting 10 days in order to clear customs. In addition, the lack of other inspection stations results in thousands of trucks on the 401 to the Trans-Canada Highway carrying containers that could be brought far closer to the destination directly by boat.

I have spoken to the port authorities in Hamilton, Picton, Windsor and Goderich. They are all ready and eager to start handling more container traffic, the big obstacle being a lack of CBSA facilities. I know that the port of Thunder Bay is in a very similar situation.

Critical minerals are also something near and dear to the hearts of the people in my riding. Frontier Lithium and Mitsubishi are looking to open the first lithium mine in northwestern Ontario, with the refinery to be in my riding. In a recent speech to the mining community, the Minister of Natural Resources made a statement that I think is worth repeating; he said that we all remember the awful situation President Zelenskyy found himself in a few months ago at the White House, where he was told, “you have no cards to play”. We as a country have lots of cards to play.

We have a lot of natural resources, including critical minerals that are needed for the defence industry and for the green transition. Developing these resources will create jobs. It will also mean that, to the degree possible, we will no longer be as dependent on fair-weather friends. A priority for the government will be to help more critical mineral projects get to a final assessment decision within a two-year window. The budget proposes to provide $2 billion to create the critical minerals sovereign fund. The fund will make strategic investments in critical mineral projects and companies.

In addition, the budget includes $370 million to create the first and last mile fund, which is a fund that would support the development of critical mineral projects and supply chains with a focus on getting near-term projects into production as soon as possible. The fund would also absorb the critical minerals infrastructure fund, providing $1.5 billion to support clean energy and transportation infrastructure projects related to critical minerals development.

Forestry is a sector we all know is hurting. I grew up outside Thunder Bay in an area where most of my friends were the children of Finnish Canadian bush workers. Forestry is practically in our DNA. Last October, the U.S. imposed a 10% tariff on softwood lumber, which is in addition to the pre-existing duties, bringing the total tax on Canadian softwood lumber to over 45%.

Our forests are one of our most valuable assets. In the long term, I think things look good for the industry. We and the Americans will continue to need lumber in order to build homes. In addition, our government will seek to use more wood in government-funded projects; encourage the development of things like cross-lamination, which would allow more building with wood and less reliance on concrete and steel; and encourage the development of novel uses for wood fibre, for example, biofuels.

Although in the long term things look pretty good for the sector, the problem is obviously the short term and surviving the existing tariffs and duties. To help with that and to get the sector through this period, our government has created the $5-billion strategic response fund and regional tariff support measures.

Also in the budget is, as of today, up to $1.2 billion in loan guarantees administered by the Business Development Bank of Canada to provide financial support to help companies maintain and restructure their operations; $500 million to renew and expand existing programs for the sector, focused on market and product diversification; and $50 million for re-skilling and income supports for affected softwood lumber workers.

Alstom is currently involved in negotiating a single-source contract for the purchase of Toronto's line 2 subway cars, which will be built, I am happy to say, primarily in Thunder Bay. To some extent, the decision to have the cars built in Thunder Bay paved the way for the commitment the government has made, in the budget, that with federal procurement, we will as much as possible buy Canadian. There is no damn way the cars should ever be built in the United States, and I trust that when we replace the existing Via Rail fleet outside the Quebec-Windsor corridor, those trains will also be built in Canada, primarily in Thunder Bay, with some work also going to La Pocatière and to Kingston.

I am a doctor, and I still practise once in a while, so what is in the budget for health care? There is $5 billion for health infrastructure, as well as money for, and this is important, credentialing. When I was an intern in Toronto in 1986, I used to joke that if I had a problem, I should ask the person mopping the floor, because they were probably a doctor from Brazil or Guatemala. Really, not a lot has changed in the intervening years with respect to credentialing, despite the fact that a lot of Canadians do not have a family doctor, particularly in rural areas.

That has begun to change, and with the budget, we propose to provide $97 million towards establishing a foreign credential recognition action fund to work with the provinces to improve foreign credential recognition and bridging programs to help foreign-trained professionals, particularly in health care, meet Canadian standards.

In this context, I would like to acknowledge two provincial programs that I think have been particularly successful in churning out doctors: PACE, the Physician Assessment Centre of Excellence in Halifax, and a one-year bridging program for foreign trained doctors run by the Manitoba College of Physicians and Surgeons and the University of Manitoba. These are programs we ought to emulate in other areas like northern Ontario.

Last, Canada has historically underfunded research and development in comparison to other places. The international talent attraction strategy and action plan will go a long way to address underfunding. Every cloud has a silver lining. This is absolutely a time to start poaching top-notch American talent. The budget provides $1.7 billion for a suite of recruitment measures, including $400 million for a complementary stream of research infrastructure to be used by this new talent.

In conclusion, I like the budget. It is good for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I suggest that it is also great for Canada.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Ziya Gul Zalmai, mother to Alex. Alex came to Canada from Afghanistan and settled in Kamloops because it reminded him of Afghanistan. He witnessed so much in Afghanistan. I was really saddened to learn that his mother recently passed away. Therefore in recognition of a life well lived, I will say, “May perpetual light shine upon her.”

I listened to my colleague's speech. He spoke about the credentialing of doctors. A couple of medical students have reached out to my office. They are training overseas in other Commonwealth nations, and they say that they cannot get residencies here. What do we do about that?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for mentioning two things.

One is Afghanistan. I, too, have worked a lot on that file. I think it is still an open file, and we have a lot more to do on it. A lot of people in Afghanistan who worked with our forces are still trying to get into this country, and I would certainly like to work toward that.

In terms of the people, especially Canadians, who have been educated overseas, the health committee is currently studying that. We are looking at it, and we want to get those people here. They are Canadians and want to work in Canada. We have the need for it. We have to help, and with this money, hopefully we will open the doors to allow those people to work in Canada, which is what we all want on all sides of the House.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked a bit about the forestry industry.

We saw the Prime Minister's announcement today. Unfortunately, although there is a program that provides liquidity support, it is struggling to get up and running. People in the forestry sector do not want more debt. What they want is a program that would allow the countervailing and anti-dumping duties to be bought up, which is not necessarily the case today. The fact that there is no such program does not help the forestry sector in the short term. I do not know whether my colleague has forestry companies in his riding, but this clearly does not meet their needs.

I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I know what my colleague is referring to. When there is a trade dispute with the United States, particularly with respect to forestry and dumping, and companies have paid money, which is sitting in the United States Congress, they would like to access that money. I can certainly appreciate that, but I think our government has announced a whole range of measures allowing companies to borrow money, which will hopefully help them get through the next few years. We realize that it is worth loaning money to these companies, partly because we believe that, hopefully, some of that money will eventually come back to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very passionate about our softwood lumber industry and the importance of trade. I am wondering if he can reflect on one of the two issues that he likes to talk about. I see trade as critically important, and I see lumber, given today's announcement by the Prime Minister, as very important. What would he highlight as his important issue over the coming weeks?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly, what our government wants to do is come to an agreement with the United States in order to reduce the tariffs on softwood lumber. That is absolutely critical. However, in the meantime, I think we have put a lot of measures in place, including some of the things that were announced by the Prime Minister today.

For example, one thing the Prime Minister announced today was working with rail companies to try to reduce freight rates for Canadian steel and lumber by 50%. He also talked about the importance of using Build Canada Homes to use more Canadian lumber to try to offset the fact that we are not as able, obviously because of tariffs, to sell lumber to the United States. As much as we have tried to provide an alternative market for building with wood in Canada, the reality is that the United States is 10 times the size of our economy, and it is very difficult with the domestic market alone to make up for the deficit caused by the United States not buying as much Canadian lumber.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-15. This bill is part of the government's efforts to respond to the current tariff crisis with the Americans. I would say that it is a very weak, very lukewarm response.

The negotiations with the Americans are currently on hold, and I do not believe anything in the budget will help meet the needs of Quebec. I do not think that it will help meet the needs of Canadians either. I will try to explain why.

There was one aspect of Bill C-15 that was very off-putting to the Bloc Québécois, and that was the addition of several billion dollars in new subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Our leader indicated from the outset that this was a non-starter. If the government added tax credits or subsidies to the fossil fuel sector, which has greatly benefited from such measures, the Bloc Québécois could not support the budget. In fact, we voted against the budget without hiding behind the curtains.

Bill C-15 includes an increase to the carbon capture and storage tax credit. The period currently goes from 2031 to 2036, but it is being extended to 2041, which will negatively impact the energy transition. We know that the principle of carbon capture and storage is mainly aimed at carbon-neutral oil production, which is a pipe dream.

It also expands the clean technology investment tax credit to include small nuclear power plants. A year and a half ago, we learned that the main objective for developing small nuclear power plants was to support the oil and gas sector by supplying the heat needed to extract bitumen and to enable it to export more gas rather than using other types of energy to process oil sands.

The budget also includes incentives for the conversion of liquefied natural gas power plants. Once again, massive support is being offered to fossil fuels.

Then there is the whole hydrogen component. In the last two or three budgets, there were considerable tax benefits for green hydrogen. There is no hiding the truth any longer: More flexible tax credits means that the gas and oil sector will be able to produce hydrogen from gas and oil and benefit from a tax credit.

The thing that bothers me the most is what the budget says about pathways plus, which is a project of national interest, according to the government. I will come back to the oil companies that make up the Pathways Alliance.

The purpose of the pathways plus project is to capture and store all emissions from the oil sector in order to achieve, as I was saying earlier, the infamous pipe dream known as low-carbon oil. The best analogy I can think of to explain what low-carbon oil means is as follows. Trying to make oil low-carbon is like going on a diet. Everyone knows not to eat poutine when dieting. There is no such thing as low-calorie poutine. There is no such thing as low-carbon oil either. This government pipe dream has found its way into the budget as a way to indirectly support the oil and gas sector. In the end, low-carbon oil will never be produced, and Quebec taxpayers' money will once again have been used to support the greedy oil and gas sector.

There is a precedent. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, I remember the government saying that we had to keep our economic sectors going, so it launched the infamous emissions reduction fund. This fund was intended to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector. After a year and a half, we realized that this was far from being the case. Production was allowed to increase, but emissions were never reduced. An unequivocal report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer demonstrated, with supporting evidence, that the government had not accomplished its mission. It was another fossil fuel subsidy in disguise. I am afraid that history could repeat itself today.

Why does that bother me? It bothers me because the purpose of this budget is ostensibly to develop infrastructure so Canada can break away from the United States. The government has repeatedly said that there will be trade corridors and infrastructure that will allow us to develop more trade with Europe. That is how we are going to sustain our economy and break away from the United States.

However, if we look at the energy sector, particularly the gas and oil sector, we see that the four members of the Pathways Alliance represent 80% of all oil sands companies. They are Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus, Imperial Oil and Suncor Energy. These companies are 73% foreign-owned and 60% American-owned. There will be investments in carbon capture strategies. The government may announce a new pipeline project tomorrow. We have already paid $34 billion for one. Whose interests will these funds serve? They will serve 60% American interests.

Worse still, even my Conservative friends are talking about the affordability crisis. Everyone knows that it is the cost of energy that is putting pressure on inflation. We know that the cost of energy has been rising sharply since the pandemic. Why? It is because the cost of refining fossil fuels is rising because the industry's margins are appallingly high. When we take a closer look at this, we realize that—I am warning my colleagues, their hair might stand on end—from 2021 to 2024, the big oil and gas companies made $131 billion in profits. That is a record.

These companies did not use their profits to buy infrastructure with. They did not use it pay for carbon capture or storage. What they did was give dividends to their shareholders. They gave almost $80 billion in dividends to their shareholders. Three-quarters of the profits made by the oil and gas sector went to the United States.

Today, the government is telling us that three-quarters of $80 billion is not enough. It is going to try to help them a little more and pay for their infrastructure too. Tomorrow, the government is going to announce a pipeline project. The budget talks about the infamous pathways plus project, under which we will collectively pay for carbon capture strategies only to watch six-tenths of the money from the oil sector's profits slip right through our fingers. It will not be reinvested in our health care system or our education system. No, it is going straight to the United States. This project is supposed to be the centrepiece of the government's plan to break away from the United States by developing Canada's own energy infrastructure. I do not know if any of that is the least bit coherent to anyone else, but I am having a hard time understanding it.

Meanwhile, the forestry sector is going through some very tough times. We had a debate on this yesterday. The government announced a $700-million liquidity support program in August. Today, it increased that amount to $1.2 billion. However, people in the forestry sector are saying that more loans are not what they need. What they need is a plan to help save the forestry sector.

Clearly, what the government announced does not address this issue. It cannot even reach an agreement with the big banks to implement this process. The only solution available to the government is one that I have been talking about for three days now. The only solution is the proposal made by the forestry sector itself to buy back the countervailing and anti-dumping duties to enable it to survive. When I look at the budget, the government seems to be far more interested in the oil and gas sector than in the forestry sector.

That evidently explains why the Bloc Québécois voted against this budget.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I may switch gears, we created the Major Projects Office this year. We have announced three major projects in Quebec.

The first is the container terminal in Contrecoeur, which will generate economic spinoffs worth $140 million a year. The second is the Alto high-speed train, which is expected to inject $35 billion into the GDP and create 51,000 jobs between Quebec City and Windsor. The third is the eastern energy partnership, which will see Quebec invest in Churchill Falls and Gull Island to bring clean energy to Quebec.

I would like to hear my esteemed colleague's thoughts on these three projects.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I assume there will be a committee study of Bill C‑15. The Bloc Québécois believes that it gives ministers far too much power. Now, there is a lot of hype in this bill. What I expect from the government is not to announce its intentions that will only have an impact 10, 15 or 20 years down the road. I expect it to do for the forestry industry what it is doing for the oil and gas industry. What the government is proposing to the forestry industry is to go into debt. What it is offering the oil and gas industry are unprecedented tax breaks.

I hope that my colleague, who is from Quebec, understands that there is a double standard. When it comes to oil and gas, our government is there. When it comes to the forestry sector, it is nowhere to be found.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, I was recently approached by a member of the community who informed me that his mom had passed away. I would like to express my condolences and respects to the family of Kamaljit Cheema. I know that Kamaljit will be very much missed. I extend my deepest condolences. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I do not believe the Liberals take the forestry industry seriously. In question period yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board laughed and suggested we were lying about mills that were shut down. When I raised that during the take-note debate yesterday, the member for Calgary Confederation laughed. I asked what his riding is, and he gleefully told us Calgary Confederation. I do not know that I would be gleefully telling anybody that when I am laughing about mill closures.

These are people's livelihoods. Forestry fed my family. My dad came from Italy with nothing and forestry fed us.

Does the member agree that the Liberals have to not only take it more seriously but also show us that they are prepared to take it more seriously?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the first part of my colleague's question had to do with the death of one of his constituents. I offer my sympathies even though I do not know what this has to do with my speech.

For the rest, I will simply say that I was criticizing the government, but I can also criticize the leader of the official opposition. In his speech yesterday, the leader of the official opposition was unwilling to take a position on a legitimate request from Quebec's forestry sector. He would not say whether he was willing to support a program to buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties. He stayed mum.

Honestly, what I want is for the entire House to take the situation in the forestry sector seriously and help us work toward a potential solution that would be viable for everyone and that would not cost the government one cent. That is what I want, and I invite my Conservative friends to join in this effort.

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

Madam Speaker, I presume that my colleague is also in favour of a durable resolution as part of the renegotiations of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement and would agree that we can no longer allow endless lawsuits that bankrupt industries.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. We have been getting ripped off since 2017. The American government uses every trick in the book to avoid the outcomes of the rulings from trade tribunals. No one in the Canadian government has the courage to stand up to it. That is what is disappointing. I would really like to see this change in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:07 p.m. to begin private members' hour.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act

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

moved that Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Special Economic Measures Act and the Broadcasting Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all members of this House for their understanding of the personal situation I am going through right now and for accommodating me tonight by moving up my time slot so we could start the debate on my private member's bill. As most of my colleagues who have been here for a while know, it sometimes takes a long time to get up in the draw and get a private member's bill into debate in the House and into committee so that maybe at the end of the day, it can be successfully adopted, become law and appear in the statutes of Canada.

I am very proud to present my new private member's bill, Bill C-219, the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act. I want to thank my seconder from Peterborough—

[Philip Lawrence]

Northumberland—Clarke.

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

Madam Speaker, I was close enough. I should have written that down.

The hon. member brought forward a bill in the last Parliament, as I did. In this Parliament, we have stuck them together and expanded on them to deal with corrupt foreign officials and kleptocrats from the many different theocracies and dictatorships. In these regimes, especially Communist regimes, people continue to use their powers and positions of influence to be kleptocrats, be corrupt and commit atrocities against their own people.

This bill would make amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law, which Senator Raynell Andreychuk and I brought in back in 2017 and became law. The bill would also update the Special Economic Measures Act to rename it to the Sergei Magnitsky global sanctions act. It would also amend the Broadcasting Act.

Just so everybody knows who Sergei Magnitsky is, in case they have not been exposed to his story, a gentleman a lot of members might know, Bill Browder, wrote a book called Red Notice. He was American and was the largest foreign investor in Russia until 2005. In 2008, it became evident that kleptocrats in the Kremlin were using his former company to commit tax evasion and tax fraud, so he hired a lawyer and accountant by the name of Sergei Magnitsky, who uncovered the largest tax fraud in Russian history. He was then arrested, detained, tortured and killed. It was a horrific thing that happened. He died in detention in a Russian prison on November 16, 2009.

None of the individuals who were responsible for the fraud, the false accusations and the criminal charges that were brought against him, and none of the individuals who enriched themselves from government coffers through the tax fraud they committed in the name of Bill Browder, were ever sanctioned and brought to justice. We cannot allow Canada or our allies to sit on the sidelines while gross human rights violators and corrupt foreign officials continue to commit atrocities, enrich themselves, abuse their citizens and ultimately walk away. Canada cannot be a safe haven for that.

Parliament started engaging with this back in 2012. Bill Browder, former Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Kara-Murza of the People's Freedom Party were here in Parliament to call on the government of the day to adopt Magnitsky sanctions to protect human rights activists in Russia and make sure that pro-democracy activists around the world were better protected, because we were going to name, shame, sanction and ban those individuals from allied nations.

In 2012, the United States adopted the first Magnitsky legislation. It was followed by the European Parliament in 2013. As we all know, on February 27, 2015, Nemtsov was assassinated just outside the Kremlin, on the bridge right beside it.

In March 2015, here in Canada, both the House and the Senate brought forward resolutions, which were passed unanimously, calling on the government to install Magnitsky sanctions. In 2017, the Sergei Magnitsky Law was adopted unanimously after it was brought forward by Senator Andreychuk in the Senate and me in the House.

Using the name of Sergei Magnitsky in our sanctions regime delivers a strong political message against Putin's brutal dictatorship and his equally corrupt allies. In the bill's preamble, it asks the government to continue to engage with our friends around the world to establish the international anti-corruption court at The Hague. This is something that has been advocated for by Integrity Initiatives International. Canada, the Netherlands and Ecuador issued a statement back in November 2022 to work towards getting it established. I was on a call just last week, and that process continues.

We need to have the international anti-corruption court with the purpose that, if we can arrest and prosecute those corrupt foreign officials, we would be not only reducing the crimes against citizens in those countries, but probably also decreasing the number of crimes against humanity. Before anyone ever becomes a genocidal maniac, they always start off as a corrupt foreign official. First, they get stuff and money out of the treasury and into their own pockets, and then they start abusing their citizens. That is when we see genocides happen, war crimes happen, human rights violated, and political prisoners and people of conscience thrown in jail.

I will go through what this bill would do. First, it would require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to publish an annual report on what the Government of Canada is doing to advance human rights internationally, as well as include the names and the status of prisoners of conscience around the world, especially Canadians who are being held in other countries. This is important, and we now have a definition of what a prisoner of conscience is. I will get into it later.

We would also amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky Law, and the Special Economic Measures Act, also known as SEMA, so they would better align with each other and the legislation would no longer be in conflict with each other, as well as align ourselves with what our allies are doing.

We would define what transnational repression is and sanction foreign nationals who commit it in Canada and elsewhere. We would ban immediate family members of sanctioned foreign nationals so Canada cannot be used as a safe haven, or as a way to hide their children, their spouse, their concubines and their girlfriends, as we often see, and use them as a way to illegally move their illicit funds into Canada, as well as protect their families from the very people they are abusing back in their own countries. The bill would require the government to table in Parliament the names of foreign nationals and entities that are added to the sanctions list to ensure there is better transparency. We would have that tabled back here in the House so we can look at it as parliamentarians.

It would require the RCMP and FINTRAC to report to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the making, administrating and enforcing of sanctions. I will get into that a little bit later. It would allow parliamentary committees to recommend names and entities to be sanctioned, and require the minister to report back to the House on that decision, or to the Senate if the committee and the Senate should undertake these studies.

This is an opportunity for those in the diaspora communities across Canada to have direct input into the process of why people should be added to lists, or maybe why they should not. It would also amend the Broadcasting Act to immediately revoke licenses for media outlets that are operated by sanctioned entities, individuals or states that the House or the Senate has recognized as having committed a genocide. Immediately, those states would have all their media banned from the Canadian airwaves.

The definition of transnational repression involves the tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders, or to 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.

We know the corrupt regimes of the People's Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, of Iran and of Russia are doing this in Canada right now. We hear these stories all the time. Just on November 13, the Globe and Mail reported, “CSIS director warns that China and Russia continue to target Canada”. When I meet with diaspora communities, they have story after story of somebody who is tied to the government of their nation, or the embassies and consulates they have located across this country, out there intimidating the families.

In the last election, Joe Tay, who was the Conservative candidate for the riding of Don Valley North, was told by the RCMP and by CSIS not to go out and door knock, because his life was in danger. This was based upon the intelligence they received from other individuals who were informing them about foreign agents working against him. Joe, of course, has celebrity status within the Chinese and Hong Kong community, and as an advocate for Hong Kongers, has now been targeted by both the Hong Kong executive council and the regime in Beijing.

We know the story of the Chinese police stations that were set up all across Canada to intimidate Chinese Canadians to ensure that they were not doing things China was not in favour of.

We have a very small Uyghur community in Canada; I had a number of them in my office just last week. One young woman told me that she came to Canada and started to speak out against the genocide and atrocities being committed against the Uyghur people, such as forced labour camps, sterilization and reprogramming, which is the brainwashing of children, taking away their faith and their language. The woman has a very sick mother, who is still in China, and she is being denied treatment because of her daughter's activities here in Canada in fighting for human rights and freedom.

I was in Halifax at the International Security Forum this past weekend, and I was talking to the executive director of the World Uyghur Congress. She said that she started speaking out against the Chinese government and the Communist regime in Beijing, and her sister was arrested in 2018. She has had no contact with her for the entire seven years.

We always have the Falun Gong practitioners and their activism; their families are also being targeted. We have the Hong Kong Watch patrons.

We also know about the Iranian community here and how it is being targeted by agents of the theocracy in Tehran. They are also driving around with police cars that are painted up just like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The one thing that we are going to require is for the minister to publish this report once a year on what they are doing on prisoners of conscience and on human rights activities. A prisoner of conscience is 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.

Again, we have heard from many different diaspora communities and families of prisoners of conscience that this is happening. Jimmy Lai is another one we hear about. He is a media mogul; he is 77 years old. He went through a show trial that lasted for months on end, and he has been held in solitary confinement for over 1,700 days without access to his medications. His health is failing, and he is being held there because he is an advocate for democracy within Hong Kong. Of course, they will not have any part of that in Beijing or in Hong Kong through the executive council.

Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is a supporter of this bill and has been here before, has been targeted and poisoned twice by Russian agents. He was left in a coma at one time, and then he was imprisoned recently, in 2022, because he criticized Putin and his war machine for invading Ukraine. He stood on the side of Ukraine, and he was arrested and held. Luckily, through a prisoner swap, he was able to get out and is now free again. He told me that the only thing that works is public attention. If it wasn't for public attention, he says he would be dead in Siberia now.

We kept on talking about Vladimir Kara-Murza. The House passed a unanimous motion, brought forward by my friend from Calgary, the current Deputy Speaker. He brought it forward to give honorary citizenship to Vladimir Kara-Murza. Because of that, he is free today, and it is the same for the two Michaels. When we can shine the spotlight on this type of corruption, these atrocities and human rights abuses, people go free and democracy, human rights and liberty are better served.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for introducing this bill. My personal view is that it is really important that Canada has a sanctions regime that allows us to not only uphold human rights, but also enforce the international rules-based order. That is not just the right thing for countries around the world to do; it is essential to protecting Canada's security and sovereignty.

Based on discussions I have had with colleagues and folks outside of this House, many folks have ideas or thoughts about how the bill could be further improved to further strengthen our sanctions regime. Is the member open to working with members of other parties in this House to amend the bill to make it even stronger and more effective?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I am always open to ways to make legislation stronger. I have already had a conversation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on ways we can strengthen the bill. I am always open to anything we can do to make it better.

There is one thing I never got to in my speech. My friend from Etobicoke Centre and I are very active with our Ukrainian communities. We want to make sure that any frozen assets, and I am thinking about Russian frozen assets, are forfeited in a reasonable amount of time for the benefit of Ukraine or any other victims, as with the shooting down of PS752 and the Iranian families that are still waiting for justice. When we think about the big Antonov plane that has been sitting at the end of the Pearson runway for the last two years, this bill would make it so the minister has to act within 12 months to forfeit assets and make sure the financial benefits are given to the victims of the aggressor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his bill and his very interesting speech, and I am pleased to know that he is willing to work together to improve his bill.

I know that one aspect was particularly important to my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, namely the fact that the bill introduces the concept of transnational repression. The Bloc Québécois had been calling for this.

However, we do have some concerns. One thing that comes to mind is the request to publish the names and status of political prisoners, which could evidently have an impact on their immediate family members for a number of reasons. I would like my colleague to talk about that aspect.

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

Madam Speaker, we are going to work with all members of this House to make sure we are not putting at risk anyone who is in a delicate situation. However, from what I am hearing from those who have been political prisoners, like Michael Kovrig and Vladimir Kara-Murza, it is the extra spotlight shined through the media and through statements made in this House and elsewhere that puts the governments holding these people falsely in a very uncomfortable position.

I know there are sensitivities around some prisoners of conscience and some families. We definitely do not want in any way, shape or form to disrupt any negotiations and discussions taking place that will result in their safe release.