Debates of Feb. 24th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Interim Federal Health Program

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I would like to talk to him about the importance of working on prevention instead of always looking at curing illness. If we want to reduce the burden on our health care systems, we need a more active population that uses health care systems less. Health is not the absence of illness; it is our ability to deal with illness. Physical and mental health are declining in our society, and that puts more and more pressure on health care systems.

Yes, we must continue to invest and work hard to ensure that the health care system can meet our needs. However, it is high time we invest money in prevention. Reducing the burden on our system is prevention.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his first election and his first year as a member of Parliament. He is a great role model and an example to follow. I am particularly impressed by his work, but also by his passion for health, as we heard in his speech. I am in good health and can confirm that I look into all of his suggestions.

My colleague talked about hundreds of thousands of people whose files are pending. Can he tell us how things are going in his riding, not necessarily in terms of just asylum seekers, but also in terms of immigration files?

Is the federal government doing a good job of processing the files of people who want to live in Canada and whom we should warmly welcome? Ultimately, we still need to have the means to welcome them.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is too much bureaucracy. It is clear that it is currently very difficult to access services. It is also clear that, this year alone, in order to speed up services, 25,000 asylum claims were approved without a single interview having been carried out.

While 300,000 people are waiting, 25,000 people were allowed in. There is a lack of control and a lack of efficiency. It is high time for that to change.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had a lot of ground to cover today on the immigration question, but I think I am going to focus on a couple of health care issues that I need to get on the record with respect to my riding.

Canada's health care system is under some serious pressure. The wait times are long, access to primary care is in crisis and hospital systems are in debt. In my riding of Niagara South, we are in the middle of an unfair and catastrophic reconfiguration of our community hospitals. In Fort Erie and Port Colborne, Niagara Health is slated to close two vital urgent care centres that were built by our fathers, our grandfathers and our aunts and uncles. Workers actually had deductions from their paycheques in order to build these institutions. People are rallying to pressure the government to step up and recognize the responsibility it has to provide community-based hospitals and emergency and complex care.

Interestingly, I have been trying to obtain information about the new health infrastructure fund that the government announced in the budget. It is supposed to provide capital for improvements to rural and remote hospitals, for smaller hospitals and communities. I cannot get answers. I have reached out to virtually everyone from the minister's office to the policy people in the department. I cannot get a response to anything about when the funding will be rolled out and how it will be administered, whether it will be done by the province or the federal government. It is another example of the failure of the government to respond to serious crises in our communities.

The last thing I want to make mention of is that the public safety minister yesterday made reference to the new cohort of graduates for CBSA guards. This 1,000-person cohort does not even keep up with the replacement requirements at CBSA on a yearly basis. The cohort is simply keeping pace with the departmental turnover. The intake process is seriously flawed. I know of several highly qualified candidates, one of whom worked for CBSA as a student with outstanding performance reviews, who cannot get through the bureaucratic process to even get an interview. With all the academic and direct job experience, this outstanding Canadian cannot get beyond the keyboard to talk to a real human being at CBSA.

I am running out of time. I just wanted to get those comments on the record because I think this is important for the people in my community.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 5:52 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 10, 2026, by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding the similarities between Bill C-2, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, and Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. Bill C-2 is currently at second reading in the House, while Bill C-12 is currently under consideration by the Senate.

In raising the point of order, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands argued that Bill C-2 should not be debated, voted on or even remain on the Order Paper because it is in violation of the same question rule, which prevents the House from considering legislation that is substantially the same. In her intervention, the member contended that parts 1 to 3 and 5 to 12 of Bill C-2 are identical to those already adopted by the House in Bill C-12, and she requested that the Speaker direct the government to remove Bill C-2 from the Order Paper.

The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes also intervened on the matter. He argued that Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 are very similar in substance and that Bill C-2 should not proceed in its current form. The member further argued that Bill C-2 must be placed in abeyance while Bill C-12 continues its progress through the other place. If Bill C-12 receives royal assent, the member suggested, the order for consideration at second reading for Bill C-2 should then be discharged and the bill dropped from the Order Paper.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons also offered remarks on the matter. He stated that parts 4, 11 and 14 to 16 of Bill C-2 do not appear in Bill C-12 and that therefore the bills do not seek to accomplish the same objectives by the same means. Based on his interpretation of a ruling made by Speaker Rota on February 18, 2021, the parliamentary secretary argued that a high degree of similarity must exist between two bills for them to be treated as substantially similar questions, a threshold not reached by the two bills in question, given the broader scope and additional measures contained in Bill C-2.

Precedents set out key considerations for the House and the Chair to assess similarity, including the following: first, the Chair looks at whether the principles and scopes of the two bills are substantially identical. The Chair does not base its judgment solely on overlapping clauses or numerical comparison. Second, a broader bill may render a narrower bill problematic if the broader bill were adopted first, particularly where the narrower bill is duplicative or substantially identical in purpose to a part of the first bill. Third, the Chair considers whether duplication or incoherence in decisions could result by the House occupying itself with a similar question.

In a ruling regarding similar bills, one of which had a broader scope than the other, my predecessor concluded, on December 12, 2023, at page 19979 of the Debates, that:

To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first.

A comprehensive review of Bill C-2 confirms that it does contain many provisions also found in Bill C-12 as adopted by the House. Parts 1 to 3, 5 to 10, and 12 and 13 of Bill C-2 are, indeed, substantially the same as what the House has adopted in Bill C-12.

However, Bill C-2 is broader in scope and also contains a variety of measures not included in Bill C-12, namely parts 4, 11, 14, 15 and 16. From this, the Chair can conclude that the two bills, though overlapping, are not substantively identical.

Further, given that the narrower Bill C-12 was adopted first and that there are substantial provisions in Bill C-2 that the House has not yet debated and considered, it is difficult to argue that the House is being asked to pronounce itself again on identical provisions.

That said, the Chair is admittedly concerned about the extensive similarities between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12, which could potentially create duplication or incoherence in the House's decisions as both bills continue to move through the legislative process. Moreover, the situation currently before the House is somewhat different than the precedents reviewed by the Chair, both in the extent of the overlap and in that Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 are government bills.

The government's prerogative to introduce legislation and to determine when it is called for debate means that there are different mechanisms available to it than are available for the consideration of two private members' bills, or a private member's bill and a government bill. For example, the government could choose to introduce a new bill without the overlapping provisions, or Bill C‑2 could be amended in committee during clause-by-clause consideration to achieve the same end, thereby avoiding the concerns raised.

Nevertheless, given the principles outlined previously, the Chair's close review of both bills leads the Chair to conclude that Bill C‑2 is broader in principle and scope than Bill C‑12 and that, as a result, the question the House would be asked to decide at second reading for Bill C‑2 is substantially different than its decisions on Bill C‑12.

I thank members for their attention.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect you would have unanimous consent to call it 6:07 p.m. so we can begin private member's hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 26, 2025, consideration of the motion 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.

Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could summarize my speech by saying yes, but also no, and sitting back down. However, I will try to go a bit further.

Yes, we intend to support Bill C‑219. This bill is, in fact, a repeat, if I may say so, of former Bill C‑281, which died on the order paper in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved last year. However, it had previously received unanimous support here in the House of Commons at third reading. It is no surprise that we are announcing that we will support Bill C‑219.

That being said, there are a few small changes that were made to this bill and that are worth studying in committee, perhaps even amended. That is why I am saying yes but also no. I am saying no to it as a whole, but yes to studying it in committee.

Bill C-219 proposes some key principles on which we cannot disagree, particularly when it comes to cracking down on states that abuse their power over political prisoners. Much has been said about the law that underpins all of these discussions, the Sergei Magnitsky law. Sergei Magnitsky, whom I would actually like to commend, was a Russian lawyer who was arrested for exposing fraud committed by Russian authorities. He was sent to prison where he died the following year. Three years after his death, a trial was held and he was found guilty of fraud. We cannot make this stuff up. This type of abuse is outrageous. It has been recognized pretty much everywhere around the world as an unacceptable and irregular deviation from the rule of law.

The United States passed a bill and implemented a law that covers this type of situation. Canada did the same in 2017. We agree on that. Bill C-219 revises these provisions, which, again, is not necessarily a bad thing, but we have to be careful.

For example, it has been proposed that the names and status of political prisoners be published. For someone like Mr. Magnitsky, whom I just mentioned, who is imprisoned, his name and status could be disclosed, which might seem valid in many respects, but the problem is that those states that abuse their power tend to crack down on the families of individuals instead. For example, if a state takes action against one of its citizens in a way that is considered completely abusive, would we want that individual's family to be harassed or pressured? I think that would be a bad idea.

We will have to look at this carefully in committee. The Bloc Québécois believes that in some cases it may be valid and in others it may not. However, before deciding whether or not to release the identities of political prisoners, we should first obtain the prior consent of their families. As the bill is currently worded, this information would be released unless the family objects. We think the opposite should happen. We should not wait for an objection. Before releasing the names of political prisoners, we should obtain permission from their immediate family. I think it would be wise to proceed in this manner, but this is the type of discussion that we will obviously have in committee.

There is also the issue of varying definitions. The bill seeks to define transnational repression. That may seem obvious but, in reality, it may not be. I think we will have to look at that carefully.

Here is the definition of transnational repression that appears in the bill: 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.‍

This definition seems to be quite broad, but it is worth asking whether it covers everything. I am not sure. Is what it does cover actually useful? I am not sure about that either. We will have to look at it carefully. I think this is indeed the kind of bill where we need to hear from experts. We need guidance from people who are familiar with this type of situation and who can ensure that we are making the right decisions and taking action where needed.

There is also the matter of defining what a prisoner of conscience is in the bill. It refers to “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.” This too may seem exhaustive, but it deserves our consideration. We need to look carefully at whether we are really achieving the objective we want to achieve with this bill. Should the definition be broadened? Should it be narrowed or clarified? For example, when we talk about beliefs, perhaps we should define what beliefs are.

We had some tough debates on this issue during the last Parliament, and I think it deserves careful consideration. I am not talking about paying close attention to lobbyists. It is important to hear from them because they will provide insight, but as a legislator, I need to hear the opinions of experts, people who know about these issues. These could be lawyers who deal with these situations or retired judges who have worked on these issues in these states. I think it will be important to do that. We would be remiss if we did not.

Another proposed change in Bill C-219 that strikes me as somewhat questionable is a name change. Name changes are usually fairly straightforward. They appear uncomplicated and we usually approve them without too much discussion, but in this case, the name change could lead to confusion. We are talking about the Special Economic Measures Act. That is its current name. The bill proposes to change the name to “An Act to provide for the imposition of economic measures against a person, entity or foreign state for grave breaches of international peace and security, gross and systematic human rights violations or acts of significant corruption”.

That is a bit of a complicated title. In fact, the proposed short title is the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act. The long title is far too long and far too complicated. It will hardly ever be used. I would be very surprised to hear a lawyer stand up in court, address the judge and spend three minutes naming the law. The long name becomes useless at that point. People will use the short title instead. However, there is already a law called the Sergei Magnitsky law. What will happen when people refer to a law that bears the same name as another law? That would cause confusion and we would be no better off. I think that, too, will have to be examined in committee.

I will dispense with the details of the bill as a whole. It is interesting. It includes sanctions for renewing licences for companies that are influenced by foreign entities that are engaged in repression. There are many things we want to keep, but as I just said, there are parts of this bill that we will have to review in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing this important piece of human rights legislation on the fourth anniversary of the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Four years ago at this time, in my household, we were celebrating the arrival of my now four-year-old son, Augustine. Three days after his birth, we began to see the terrible images and hear stories of carnage, death and widespread destruction. The joy we felt at the birth of a new child contrasted sharply with the agony of fathers and mothers in Ukraine who had children taken away from them in the prime of life. This brutal war was the choice of one man, Vladimir Putin, a choice that he made with wilful disregard for the lives of the Ukrainian people and the Russian people alike.

While welcoming a new child into my family, I thought about the many parents who would never see their children again because of that evil decision. I also think about the many Ukrainian parents whose children have been abducted from occupied territories by the Russian government. The reality of systematic child abduction by the occupiers underlines that this war of aggression is not just about stealing territory; it is about stealing people. It is about ripping children from their parents and severing their filial connection to their people and their heritage.

In response to these events, we must do everything we can to strengthen Ukraine's position for fighting and its position for negotiating. These objectives are one and the same. Whether Ukraine is defending itself on the battlefield or at the negotiating table, a stronger Ukraine will lead to a more just outcome. A stronger Ukraine will force Russia to stop making absurd maximalist demands and to actually get serious about ending the war. Russia chose this war. It can choose to end it. Ukrainian strength will ultimately force that change of position.

As part of supporting Ukraine, Canada must do more to close sanction loopholes and prevent the Russian government from using international exchange to fuel its aggressive war. I therefore repeat my long-standing call on the government to close the sanction waivers on Russian titanium that it created and to put more pressure on Russia's strategic partners around the world, China and India, among others. The Canadian government has repeatedly granted sanction waivers that have assisted the Russian government and the Russian army. In particular, the titanium sanction waivers the Liberals gave to Russia must be removed right away.

From time to time, I hear questions or feedback from people about the amount of money the Ukraine war is costing. It is my view that strong support for Ukraine and tough sanctioning of the aggressor right from the outset, indeed immediately after the initial invasion began in 2014, would have prevented this war or led to a faster Ukrainian victory. It is particularly true in this case that early decisive support pays critical dividends, and it remains true that principled, strong, supportive engagement early on strengthens our strategic position and spares us costs down the line. The cost of investing in security is outweighed by the cost of not investing in security.

Although it would clearly have been better if this war had never started, the fact that Russia's basic military and strategic weakness has now been exposed, and the fact that a substantial portion of Russia's fighting capacity has been destroyed underline the strategic benefits to the west of past and ongoing military support for Ukraine. In the midst of these events, it astonishes me that some people still make the absurd claim that victory for Ukraine is impossible. It is astonishing because when I think back to where we were four years ago, when I would wake up with the baby and anxiously check my phone to see if Kyiv had fallen, and how from those dark early days, when it looked as though Ukraine's government might collapse and immediately be replaced by a puppet regime that would rule the whole country, we have instead come to this present situation where parts of eastern Ukraine remain occupied but with little territorial change and Russia continues to sustain far more casualties than the Ukrainians do.

The war is terrible, but what Ukraine has achieved and preserved is also incredible. Imagine what would yet be possible if the west were a bit more serious about giving Ukraine every tool it required to fight and succeed. Small countries with sufficient economic and military support and the superior will to fight can and do win wars and change the course of history. Ukraine can win. Ukraine must win. Ukraine will win. My support and our Conservative support for the Ukrainian people will be unrelenting until victory is achieved, and we call for the policies that will allow that victory to be achieved as quickly as possible.

Today we are debating Bill C-219, an important bill that deals with international human rights. This bill draws pieces from other human rights bills that have been before the House previously. In particular, this bill contains provisions from the international human rights act that I worked on extensively in the last Parliament. That bill was adopted unanimously by the House but was not even examined by the Senate.

I do not think the government liked the bill, even though it did not oppose it openly. I believe it directed its allies in the Senate to prevent that bill from moving forward. The Senate is supposed to be the House of sober second thought and not to do the government's dirty work by blocking legislation without studying it, so I hope that we do not see a repeat of that abuse.

Bill C-219 would strengthen the sanctions that were applied against violators of human rights, including those responsible for transnational repression, it would strengthen accountability by requiring the government to respond to recommendations for sanctions put forward by parliamentary committees, and it would amend the Broadcasting Act to prohibit foreign state-controlled media involved in human rights abuses from having privileged access to Canadian airwaves.

Foreign state-controlled media have actually been directly involved in the perpetration of human rights violations through the production of forced confessions. It is unthinkable that forced confessions, extracted through grievous violations of fundamental human rights, would be shown on Canadian television through the awarding of broadcasting licences to those who are perpetrators of human rights violations. I would strongly encourage the CRTC and the heritage minister to take steps on their own to prevent this kind of complicity in human rights violations even before we pass the bill.

While we rightly work to pass legislation that advances human rights, the use of sanctioning tools will always be dependent on political will and on whether the government actually uses the tools that legislation provides. The Trudeau government's approach to human rights was symbolic but insincere, preening without pushing. It abstained on genocide votes in this House and dismissed arms sales to aggressors as no big deal while pushing for the most general, non-binding human rights language and adding the word “progressive” to the front of trade deals already negotiated. This approach placated some and annoyed others, but it did not actually change anything that mattered.

The current approach of the Liberals has dropped the pretenses, but they have learned the wrong lessons. A G7 nation does have the power and the capacity to take on specific human rights issues in a real, substantive and prudent way and advance them in a manner that puts substance ahead of signalling. This is the right thing to do in response to a recognition of the universal and immutable dignity of the human person. It is also the strategically smart thing to do.

The compromises that the Prime Minister wants to make on human rights are not just at odds with our values; they are contrary to our interests. At a fundamental level, the world is in a period of escalating competition. In this world, Canada must be strong. Canada must form durable alliances with real partners, and Canada must play a role in managing the flow of essential resources so that we and our allies are not strategically dependent on our enemies.

The Prime Minister's recent deal with China increases our strategic dependence on a regime that could cut us off for arbitrary political reasons without any possible avenue of independent appeal, increasingly making us more dependent on the CCP. This is not right, and this is not smart. Our most critical relationships with other peoples and nations are formed when we stand up for our values and when we build community with those who are on the same side.

Aristotle wrote that perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good and alike in virtue, for these wish well alike to each other. What is true of friendship among individuals is also true among nations: Strategically useful, trusting and effective friendships among nations form when nations are good and alike in virtue. By good, I mean not necessarily that their present leaders are good, but that they have good constitutions. It is the real substance of an international rules-based order that nations can ascend in the virtuousness of their constitutions and laws and can be drawn into greater community with other like-minded nations through that ascent.

The alternative, highly transactional approach to global affairs promoted by the Prime Minister necessarily leaves us more vulnerable, and this is why human rights are important, not just as ends in themselves, but as means to other ends.

In closing, I would like to draw the attention of the House to one particular case of concern related to human rights, that of Silvana Atef Fanous in Egypt. Silvana is a minor with an intellectual disability: She has the cognitive ability of an eight-year-old. She disappeared and was later discovered to be in the custody of an older man, who claimed she had converted and planned to marry him. This is a clear violation of Egyptian law. There are many very troubling aspects of Silvana's case, including the way that authorities continue to treat her family. I am closely following this case, and I call for the immediate, safe return of Silvana to her family.

Human rights advocacy is about thinking of the human person on the other side of the world and who that person is, and recognizing their dignity as the same as ours and our children's. Human rights are about placing real people at the centre of what we do and advocating that the Silvanas of the world never be forgotten.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-219 and Canada's ongoing work to promote human rights and address corruption. Canada recognizes the work and influence of Sergei Magnitsky in helping create international tools designed to respond to acts of significant corruption and human rights violations. These tools remain essential as we confront modern threats to international peace and security.

I want to acknowledge the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his role in enacting Canada's Sergei Magnitsky Law and thank him for introducing Bill C-219. The bill seeks to amend four pieces of federal legislation related to foreign policy, sanctions, international human rights obligations and broadcasting licences.

Under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, Canada has imposed sanctions against 80 foreign nationals. Canada has also imposed dozens of sanctions against individuals and entities responsible for human rights violations and corruption under the Special Economic Measures Act.

Let us also recognize that today marks the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. On this solemn anniversary, we remember those who have lost their lives fighting against Putin's tyranny, and we recommit to ending this war and holding Russia to account. Since the invasion began four years ago, Canada has imposed sanctions on thousands of individuals and entities linked to the Kremlin, including senior officials, oligarchs and those enabling the war effort.

The promotion, respect and advancement of human rights continues to be at the heart of Canada's foreign policy. Protecting and defending human rights is essential to building stable, prosperous and inclusive societies. We see this clearly in Ukraine, where civilians continue to face indiscriminate attacks, including strikes on energy infrastructure, schools and hospitals.

We have delivered over $23.5 billion in military, humanitarian and financial assistance since the war began, making us one of the largest contributors to Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction. Canada has provided armoured combat support vehicles, artillery systems and ammunition, drones, winter gear and advanced air defence systems to help Ukraine protect civilians and critical infrastructure. We have also funded demining initiatives and battlefield medical support to help save lives.

In addition to military support, Canada has provided billions of dollars in financial assistance to stabilize Ukraine's economy. This includes sovereign loan support and direct budgetary funding to help the Ukrainian government continue delivering essential services like pensions, health care and education, even as the war continues.

Humanitarian support remains a cornerstone of Canada's response. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars in life-saving assistance, including food aid, emergency shelter, clean water, medical supplies and winterization support. Canada has also provided generators, transformers and grid repair equipment to help restore a lot of the electricity and heat following Russian strikes on energy infrastructure.

Human rights defenders are often on the front lines, shining a spotlight on violations and advocating meaningful change. Canada has supported Ukrainian civil society organizations, accountability initiatives and documentation of war crimes to ensure that perpetrators are held to account.

We have also welcomed tens of thousands of displaced Ukrainians through special immigration measures, and provided support to help them rebuild their lives in safety, including work permits, settlement services and access to education and health care.

Support for human rights defenders is non-negotiable for these courageous individuals who hold governments and companies to account, often while risking their safety in the face of reprisals and repression. When and where necessary, Canada will respond decisively to states' use of repression and violence beyond their borders, as well as against their own people.

Considering this, as mentioned in the first hour of the second reading of this bill, the government supports the objectives of Bill C-219 but remains concerned about significant flaws in the legislation. We look forward to working with the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and our opposition colleagues at the foreign affairs committee to address these concerns.

Under the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, human rights defenders, activists, journalists, lawyers, community leaders and ordinary citizens are essential for accountability and progress. Canadians care deeply about human rights and expect their government to help protect and advance human rights at home and around the world.

Canada recognizes the vital role that human rights defenders play, often at great personal risk, in upholding universal rights and strengthening the rule of law. We have demonstrated this through concrete action. Canada has trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops under Operation Unifier and its continuation in Europe, contributing instructors and expertise in multinational training missions, which I saw first-hand last year.

We have provided advanced military equipment and worked with partners to strengthen Ukraine's resilience on the battlefield and beyond. Canada has also supported Ukraine's long-term recovery and reconstruction. We have contributed funding to international financial institutions and reconstruction initiatives aimed at rebuilding critical infrastructure, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and strengthening democratic institutions and anti-corruption reforms.

We have also supported international investigations into atrocities, including efforts to pursue justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Canada has funded documentation efforts, legal assistance and accountability mechanisms, including support for international courts and Ukrainian prosecutors working to hold perpetrators accountable. I will emphasize again that supporting human rights defenders is not optional. It is imperative.

Bill C-219 aims to amend Canada's sanctions regime and the Special Economic Measures Act to address certain perceived gaps and shortcomings. However, it would have negative impacts by adding unnecessary paperwork and administrative burdens. The Prime Minister has been clear that he wants to improve government efficiencies. That said, our government supports some of the legislative amendments proposed in this bill such as new sanction triggers, and we look forward to further discussions on this at committee.

Canada's use of sanctions has been a critical tool in responding to Russia's war against Ukraine. We have worked in lockstep with allies to impose one of the largest sanctions responses in history, including coordinated measures to freeze assets and restrict access to global financial systems. We have sanctioned thousands of individuals and entities linked to the Kremlin and those enabling the war effort. We have also moved forward with innovative tools to seize and repurpose sanctioned assets in support of Ukraine's reconstruction. Canada was the first G7 country to introduce legislation allowing for the seizure and repurposing of sanctioned Russian assets, and we continue working with partners to ensure those resources are directed toward rebuilding Ukraine.

Lastly, I will touch on the bill's proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act. Acknowledging the crucial role media plays in supporting and advancing human rights, I think we can all agree this is a shared objective. We have seen how disinformation has been weaponized in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, reinforcing the importance of credible, independent media and responsible regulatory frameworks.

That said, these provisions fail to account for important factors such as the CRTC's lack of expertise to determine whether a genocide has occurred. The bill could also benefit from amendments allowing the CRTC to address content distributed by foreign broadcasters of concern and to rely on the expertise of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, both domestically and internationally, when making determinations related to political influence and international criminal law.

In conclusion, the government looks forward to continuing the in-depth study of this bill in committee. We firmly believe Parliament can address the concerns raised and strengthen the legislation by adopting meaningful amendments.

Let me be clear: We cannot and will not support amendments that compromise the safety of individuals. Similarly, provisions that are duplicative and costly will not be supported.

We stand ready to collaborate with the member opposite and with all colleagues in the House to develop practical and sustainable solutions consistent with the spirit of Bill C-219.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the anniversary of Russia's brutal invasion in Ukraine, we are reminded of something that should never be controversial in the House: Unchecked tyranny anywhere threatens freedom everywhere. We have seen it in Kyiv. We have seen it in Tehran, and increasingly, we see it reaching into our own communities here at home.

Tyranny does not start with tanks. It starts with corruption, with kleptocrats stealing from their own people and with judges who do not serve justice but instead serve the dictators who put them there. It starts with silencing women and girls, jailing dissidents and crushing journalists. Then, when no one stops it, it metastasizes. It becomes the brutality of war. This is the pattern we saw in Moscow, and that is the pattern we are seeing in Tehran and we have seen in Tehran over the last 47 years. It is the pattern this legislation is designed to confront.

Nearly a decade ago, Canada made a decision that defined who we are. My colleague in this place from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, alongside Senator Andreychuk and many other principled advocates close to this place, brought Canada's Sergei Magnitsky Law into force. It was named after a man who exposed corruption and paid for it with his life. Sergei Magnitsky was tortured to death for telling the truth. His murder was meant to silence others, and instead it gave democracy their most powerful non-military weapon against modern authoritarians: targeted sanctions that strike kleptocrats, despots and dictators where it hurts more, which is their money and, most importantly, their mobility. Canada acted with moral clarity, but today's threats have evolved and so too must the country's response.

Long before I got elected to the House, I had the privilege of working alongside colleagues who understood this deeply, including the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who has spent more than a decade pushing Canada to take corruption, human rights and foreign intimidation seriously. When he is in the room, I know I am in the right room, and his commitment extends well beyond the House and his time here in it.

This legislation builds on that foundation. It strengthens, modernizes and sharpens our sanctions regime so it is not symbolic, it is not slow and it is not selective. In other words, it makes it clear, predictable and enforceable. It does this because silence protects dictators, while scrutiny, the very thing we are responsible for here, protects those who are oppressed.

Here is a short breakdown for everybody who is interested as to how this modernization would look. This would require an annual public report on Canada's human rights sanctions and on prisoners of conscience worldwide, including Canadians unjustly detained abroad. There is far more that could be done on that front, but this is a start. In fact, there have been a number of pieces of legislation introduced to the House to look at that issue specifically that have been rejected wholeheartedly by the government. We have to say this out loud: Sunlight does save lives. It saved the life of Vladimir Kara-Murza. It did for the two Michaels, and it can do that again.

This bill would also formally define and sanction transnational repression, because what once required secret police crossing borders now requires only a phone, a consulate and a proxy organization operating quietly in our communities. We know it is happening. Let us be honest about what that means. Authoritarian regimes in Beijing, Tehran, Moscow and beyond are intimidating, surveilling, harassing and threatening people right here in Canada. Dissidents receive midnight calls. Activists are told that their families back home will suffer. Students are followed. Journalists are pressured. This is not an abstract theory. It is happening in Toronto, in Vancouver, in Calgary, in Montreal and right across the country.

As an MP, and I am not the only one in the House, I have often taken a call from someone in a car, far away from their house, with a blurred-out background, whispering because they are terrified that the regime they ran away from is following them right here in Canada. If authoritarian states can reach into our cities and hunt their critics, we no longer have full control over the spaces that we claim are our own. Canada should be a sanctuary for freedom, not a playground for these foreign tyrants, but that is exactly what is happening here.

This bill would ensure that when regimes engage in transnational repression on Canadian soil, there are swift, automatic consequences: We would freeze their assets, ban their travel, name them publicly and make it unmistakably clear that Canada will not be their hunting ground and that Canadians who ran away from them will not be hunted.

We would also close the loophole that allows intimidated family members of sanctioned officials to live in luxury while their relatives jail protesters and siphon money from abroad. There would be no more parking illicit assets here while citizens back home suffer, or regime activists working out in the local fitness club or eating steaks at Toronto's fanciest restaurant, which we have also seen.

We would revoke broadcasting licences for state-controlled propaganda outlets run by regimes committing atrocities. A regime committing a genocide does not deserve a megaphone on Canadian airwaves. We should support the creation of an international anti-corruption court, because before tyrants become war criminals, they are corrupt officials. We know this through every point in history. They steal; then they repress, and then they wage war. If we confront corruption on the front end, we reduce the atrocities that often follow.

I want to spend a few moments on why this matters and to whom it matters. The tragedy of flight PS752 still weighs heavily on many families in this country. They have waited years for justice and compensation. Frozen regime assets exist, and they should serve the victims, not sit idle. I know this is not foundational to families, because money does not heal the unimaginable and permanent loss they experience, but it would serve a purpose and it would tell the world that we stand up for our people.

Russian sovereign assets frozen in Canada should support Ukraine's fight for survival. When foreign governments intimidate people on Canadian soil, it is not only a violation of rights. It becomes a test of our own, of whether we still believe in moral consequences or have grown too distracted and too divided to draw that very important line.

The Cold War had a clarity that many in our era have forgotten. It drew a line clearly between fear and freedom. Today, those lines are less visible, but they are just as real. They run through the phone of a dissident who fled Tehran, through the inbox of a Hong Kong activist and through the heart of a Ukrainian family who believed that Canada meant safety and now wonder whether the regime they escaped followed them here. If we do not draw that line, we teach dictators that Canada could be a welcoming home.

This legislation would draw that line clearly. It would say, “Canada will name, shame and sanction you, and will shut the door on your money and your friends. It would say, “Canada will not be neutral between those who are jailed and the jailer.” It would say something that matters deeply to Iranian Canadians who marched for Mahsa Amini and those who marched in the hundreds of thousands, even in the last week, against the genocidal mullahs; to the Ukrainian Canadians watching their homeland defend itself; to the Hong Kong democracy advocates; to the Tibetans; to the Uyghurs and to anyone who came here because Canada represented freedom: “We will not allow the dictators you escaped to intimidate you here in Canada.” That is something everyone here should agree on.

I hope that this legislation passes, that the Liberals take it seriously, that it is studied in committee and that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is successful in his pursuit of human rights, dignity and the rule of law, as he has always been in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the issue that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has brought forward in the form of a private member's bill.

This is one of those occasions when there is substantial support to see a bill advance. I believe we have had members from all sides of the House support the principle of the legislation, recognizing that Canada is indeed a world leader in many of the things we do. There is an expectation that where we can in fact improve upon the system, there is movement toward doing so.

The Prime Minister has been very clear over the last year, since he first became our Prime Minister, about how important it is that Canada has a place on the world stage. We know the experience that he brings to the table, his understanding of the economy and the relations he has with world leaders. From a personal perspective, and what virtually every member of the House would be able to talk about, we recognize what our Canadian values are and understand that we can make the world a better place to live.

I see Bill C-219 as a piece of legislation that has the potential for a more thorough discussion at the committee stage. I know the government is very interested in advancing that. When we talk about the bill itself, there are four aspects. In terms of sanctions and so forth, there are four pieces of legislation that we should be aware of: the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act; the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act; the Broadcasting Act; and the Special Economic Measures Act.

As our caucus has indicated, there are things we can do to update or modernize our sanction regimes. I think this piece of legislation before us today affords us the opportunity to do just that. Hopefully, we will be able to capture the same sort of goodwill that we see on the floor of the House of Commons in the debate on this legislation and carry it to the standing committee. I think that is important. I will not be in attendance at the standing committee, but I trust that if we can get that same sort of co-operation, and build on a consensus, we can all take some pride in the final product that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is proposing.

It is interesting that we are debating this legislation today. On Sunday, I and the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, along with Manitoba's premier and the mayor of Winnipeg, spoke at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. We addressed literally hundreds of people who came to downtown Winnipeg to listen to what we had to say, and hear what the Government of Canada had to say, in regard to what is taking place on the four-year anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin. There was a great deal of emotion flowing through the human rights museum.

People are looking to Canada for the types of things that Canada can do and has done. I, for one, look at the seizure and repurpose of Russian assets and how, as a nation, we led the way, in terms of the G7 countries.

I provided comments there with regard to the billions of dollars, over $22 billion, that the federal government has committed to support and has spent on helping the people of Ukraine. What is happening in Ukraine matters a great deal here in Canada. I reference the 1.3 million people in Canada of Ukrainian heritage, not to mention the 300,000 people who fled Ukraine because of the illegal invasion to come to Canada, where they would have a sense of security; where their children can in fact continue on with some normalcy, whether it is in their education or in having some health care services; and where they can contribute.

I am absolutely amazed how, in both urban and rural communities, individuals coming from Ukraine have really worked to develop and improve our economy here. I think Canada opening its doors was very important and was the right thing to do.

I made reference to the horrors of war. We have talked about issues such as how Canada is using billions of dollars to support Ukraine. My colleague made reference to Operation Unifier, which was enabled through our forces to assist in the training of tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers in a very direct, and at times indirect, way. We have supported the military with armaments and supplies of all different forms.

We have talked about the humanitarian aid that Canadians have provided, both through public dollars and through individuals stepping up and donating their dollars directly. Canada has been there in a very real way.

We have talked about the issue of child abduction, which brings us back to the whole issue of human rights, the tragedies and what we have been witnessing there: a wide spectrum of human rights violations. Canada will continue to monitor that and act where we can.

We have talked about the importance of international courts. We have talked about how important it is that not only are we there today for Ukraine but also that we continue to be there in the future. There are things such as the trade agreement that was signed when the President of Ukraine came here, when we looked at the issue of investing in infrastructure and the rebuilding of Ukraine. Having a system of sanctions that is effective is absolutely important, not only for this government but also, I believe, as a reflection of what our values are. There is an expectation that we look at ways to improve those four pieces of legislation. That is something we want.

As I indicated in my opening comment, we are prepared to work with all members of the House. Hopefully, if the bill gets to committee, we will be able to continue on that consensus bill and, at the end of the day, continue to demonstrate that as legislators here in Ottawa, we can in fact make a positive difference and make our sanction regime even better by modernizing it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman now has his right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone who has spoken to my bill, Bill C-219, the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act. I have been listening carefully through the two hours of debate that we have had.

First of all, I have to thank my seconder, the member for Northumberland—Clarke, for the work he did in the previous Parliament on his own piece of legislation, which was folded into this one. I also have to thank the member for Thornhill for their very kind words. I thank the members for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Calgary Heritage, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Etobicoke Centre, Rivière-du-Nord, Winnipeg North, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton and Lac-Saint-Jean, and of course, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is also the member for Don Valley West, for their interventions.

This legislation will strengthen Canada's sanctions regime to better align with our allies so we can hold foreign states, foreign entities and individuals to account for their abuses of power and corruption around the world. It encompasses changes that have been advocated by the diaspora communities here in Canada for years.

What we have heard from so many people today is that we have, for far too long, been hearing about things like foreign interference here in Canada and transnational repression. The people who are in communities here are still worried, whether they are from the Iranian community, the People's Republic of China, from Sudan and other places or from Ukraine even. There are Russians living here who are pro-democracy advocates and who are getting stories from back home of the ongoing corruption, interference and abuse that is taking place.

It is fitting that we are here on the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine, of Russia's unjust invasion. We know that, if we had this type of legislation in place some time ago, if we were sanctioning kleptocrats and corrupt foreign officials like Vladimir Putin when he was shaking down people like Bill Browder and ordering the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, maybe they would not have become the tyrants, despots and dictators who then want to wage war on their neighbours, just like the theocracy in Tehran, Putin in Russia or what we are seeing the Communist Chinese Party doing to Taiwan and Hong Kong. This is important.

Just to quickly recap what the bill does, Bill C-219 would require that the Minister of Foreign Affairs publish an annual report to advance what they are doing to advance human rights internationally, including the names and status of prisoners of conscience who are being held around the world. This would amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky Law, which I had passed here in 2017, as well as the Special Economic Measures Act, changing it to the Sergei Magnitsky global sanctions act.

The bill would define what transnational repression is, and it would sanction the foreign nationals who commit it here in Canada and elsewhere. It would ban, immediately, the immediate family members of sanctioned foreign nationals so that Canada could no longer be used as a safe haven for those corrupt foreign officials to hide their families and their wealth. It would require the government to table in Parliament the names of foreign nationals and any that are added to the sanction list.

It would provide support to the Minister of Foreign Affairs at their sanctions bureau by requiring the RCMP and FINTRAC to report to the minister and give them more tools, allow parliamentary committees to hear from diaspora communities and suggest names and entities to be added to our sanctions regime, and establish timelines for the forfeiture of frozen assets. Finally, it would amend the Broadcasting Act to revoke the licences of media outlets that are in countries that have been sanctioned by Canada or that the House and the Senate have recognized as committing genocide.

In the bill, in the preamble, we are encouraging the government to continue to pursue the establishment of the international anti-corruption court at The Hague, along with our allies. If we can get at these corrupt foreign officials sooner, maybe they would not turn into warmongers like Vladimir Putin or people like Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs who are committing mass atrocities in Iran today and creating destabilizing impacts across the region.

I ask everyone to support this bill. I am looking forward to our work at committee and to seeing the amendments that may be proposed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House pass Bill C-219 unanimously.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)