House of Commons Hansard #92 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was iran.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Export and Import Permits Act Second reading of Bill C-233. The bill aims to amend the Export and Import Permits Act to close dangerous loopholes in Canada's arms export regime, particularly the exemption for exports to the United States. Supporters argue it ensures Canada's international obligations and prevents human rights violations. Opponents, including the Bloc and Conservatives, warn it is too rigid, could harm Canadian industry, and strain alliances and the crucial defence relationship with the U.S. 6900 words, 1 hour.
Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9 Members debate a motion to expedite Bill C-9, which aims to combat hate propaganda, hate crimes, and protect access to religious sites. Liberals and the Bloc Québécois support the motion, citing Conservative filibustering and the urgent need to address rising hate-motivated violence. Conservatives oppose limiting debate, arguing the bill, particularly the removal of the religious exemption, threatens freedom of religion and expression, and that the government is censoring discussion on a "censorship bill." 15800 words, 2 hours.
Canada Post Corporation Act First reading of Bill C-262. The bill aims to modernize and standardize direct-to-consumer shipping of Canadian wine, beer, and spirits across provincial borders, creating a national framework to replace current provincial rules. 300 words.
Build Canada Homes Act Second reading of Bill C-20. The bill aims to establish Build Canada Homes, a Crown corporation, to increase affordable housing supply and promote efficient building techniques. The Liberal government states it will fast-track construction, use federal lands, and leverage partnerships, backed by a $13 billion investment. Conservatives criticize it as a fourth bureaucracy that will not solve the housing crisis, citing past Liberal failures and proposing tax cuts and reduced red tape instead. The Bloc Québécois argues housing is provincial jurisdiction and advocates for unconditional federal transfers to Quebec. 26100 words, 3 hours.
Iran and the Middle East Members debate the hostilities in Iran and the Middle East and their impact on Canadians abroad. The Liberals emphasize de-escalation, civilian protection, and consular support for Canadians, while Conservatives criticize the government's "incoherent and contradictory" position on U.S. air strikes. The Bloc Québécois stresses the importance of consulting allies and preparing contingency plans, and the NDP condemns the strikes as illegal under international law, urging a return to diplomacy. 31600 words, 4 hours.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Madam Chair, on October 7, 2023, Hamas, which is a proxy terror organization funded by the Iranian regime, conducted one of the worst mass murders of Jewish people since the Holocaust. The government of the regime in Iran has presented an existential threat to Israel since, frankly, time immemorial.
Does my colleague agree that the Israeli people have the right to defend themselves?
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois has always said and will always say that Israel has the right to fully defend itself, just like any other independent country or any other nation does. Israel has the right to its own security and the right to take every measure to defend itself.
Now, international law comes first. Above all, there are allies with whom it is possible to work, whether diplomatically, through various international organizations such as the UN, the G7, or NATO countries, to forge alliances and ensure that the security of all democratic nations is not jeopardized.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Chair, my colleague has clearly outlined the solutions proposed by the Bloc Québécois.
He talked about consulting with allies while acknowledging that Iranians must be the only ones to choose their leaders.
Then he talked about preparing a contingency plan beforehand, of course. It has to be prepared.
I would like his thoughts on a point that I think has been overlooked: preparing measures to mitigate the impact on the people here. I would like to hear my colleague talk about that, briefly.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Chair, five minutes really does fly by.
We know that there will be repercussions. We are experiencing them already. What will it mean? Of course, it means that energy costs are going to spike, but it also means that that nearly every economic sector will feel the effects, possibly leading to job losses and rising inflation.
What we are saying is that, first and foremost, as my leader mentioned, wage subsidies should be introduced for businesses affected by these repercussions. This was done before, during COVID‑19. The Bloc Québécois proposed it and we were delighted when the government picked it up. When possible, we can use this as a way to maintain the employment relationship, to reassure people about their jobs, but also to reassure businesses that their employment relationships are not lost.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Madam Chair, Iran did not observe international law when it built up the capacity for nuclear weapons or when it committed mass terror acts on many people around the world, different groups, including Israel.
I would like my colleague to explain how the Israeli government's degrading the Iranian regime's capacity to build nuclear weapons, stockpile additional weapons for its proxies and continue the reign of terror on the Jewish people would not constitute defending itself.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Chair, what we have been saying all along is that we cannot support an American-Israeli military offensive without prior consultation. In fact, even the U.S. Congress was not consulted.
We will always defend Israel's right to defend itself.
Just because someone commits a crime does not mean another person has the right to commit one too. That is one thing. Now, I am not saying this is a crime. I am saying that the most important thing is to talk to our allies, ensure that everyone is on the same page and ensure that there is no impending catastrophe as a result of the military actions of Donald Trump and Israel.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Madam Chair, tonight we are holding a take-note debate, but it could have been an emergency debate. In fact, many of us requested that it be an emergency debate. This debate concerns an issue that is extremely serious and extremely worrying: the situation in the Middle East.
As members of the human race, I think we all have reasons to grieve and worry about what is happening.
Some Quebeckers sitting here are about my age, give or take a few years. Like many other Quebeckers, we grew up with that classic Quebec film called La guerre des tuques and with the saying, “War, war, that's no reason to hurt each other.” We remember that.
Unfortunately, once we leave tender childhood behind, we are confronted with the cold reality that war means dead men, women and children; it means the sound of bombs; it means souls; it means civilians dying and returning soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. In many cases, families never see their fathers and husbands again. Unfortunately, some wars are necessary, some wars are just, but it is best to avoid them whenever possible.
In this case, my colleague talked earlier about how the United States and Canada helped overthrow the Iranian regime in the past and installed the shah of Iran. It was a corrupt regime. The transplant did not take and the shah was overthrown. I do not know how necessary it is to point out that no one here in the House has any sympathy for the Iranian regime, for political Islam or for the terrorist practices supported by the Iranian regime.
That is not the issue. I think that the debate needs to focus on other things. Although we may have differing opinions on what needs to be done, no one here has any sympathy or support for those things. However, one thing is certain: Nation building does not work when it is imposed. When imperial wars have been waged to change a regime, no matter how repressive or repugnant the regime was, it has never worked.
Did it work in Iraq? No. Did it work in Afghanistan, even though, in that case, it was a completely justified war because it was a regime that had supported a terrorist attack in the heart of the west? Circumstances made this attack necessary, but the Taliban returned several years later anyway. Is it going to work any better, or work at all, in the case of Iran? The answer is also no.
The Ayatollah regime was on its last legs and was extremely unpopular. Its economy was in bad shape, and it was starting to become unstable. People were protesting, and young people especially were deeply hostile to that regime. It was probably only a matter of time before it fell on its own. However, through these attacks, which were carried out without consulting their partners, the United States and Israel have probably created generations of anti-westerners, who will stay that way for a long time, pass it on and build a common narrative for themselves in that country. They will build a common narrative that will ensure that anti-western hate lasts a very long time.
These nation builders—formerly known as neo-Conservatives during the time of Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., who believed that bombing and invading countries was the way to impose democracy—were, however, denounced by the Trump administration during a different era. I was in Dayton just last spring for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and the United States gave a speech opposing hegemonic and imperialistic practices. That has never worked anywhere.
Here at home, while we strongly favour diplomatic support, humanitarian support, humanitarian convoys, emergency aid shipments to the most essential consular missions over there, we want to make it perfectly clear: Not a single Canadian soldier is to set foot there for military purposes.
That is a no. It will not work. We would end up getting involved for reasons that are not our own. We would get involved for unsubstantiated reasons in a dispute that solves nothing. My purpose is not to rewrite history, but diplomacy has worked before—
The Deputy Chair Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I must interrupt the hon. member. Questions and comments.
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Madam Chair, my colleagues from the Bloc have been talking about the lack of consultation on Israel's response to the Iranian regime. I would just like to note that Israel was not consulted before Iranian terror proxy Hamas killed 1,200 innocent Jews and other persons, including 46 Americans, on October 7. Also, Canada was not consulted when the Iranian regime shot down 45 Canadians and 30 permanent residents.
Can my colleague explain how Israel's defending itself by degrading the Iranian regime's capacity to create nuclear weapons and arm its proxies is not justified?
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for the question, as it will allow me to conclude my speech. What I had left to say would have taken about a minute.
If she wants us to go back in history, we can go back to a fairly recent time when there was a ballistic missile agreement that limited the deployment of nuclear material. This resulted in Iran disposing of 95% of its uranium and allowed inspectors to visit nuclear power plants. This was during Barack Obama's presidency in the United States. The agreement was signed by the United States and Iran, but also by Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. All of these countries sat down at the same table. The heads of state who find it difficult to look each other in the eye today were all at the same table. What this shows us is that the diplomatic approach works, while escalation does not.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Chair, I will take the liberty of asking a question.
I want to be very clear that I will not point out the absence or presence of anyone in the House. I just want to ask my colleague whether he thinks it is right that the leader of the Green Party asked more questions and made more comments this evening in response to speeches than any members from the Liberal Party and the NDP combined, even though they are the ones who asked for this debate.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Madam Chair, I will not point out the presence or absence of anyone either, but I will say that I would have really liked, given the importance of this moment, to know the Prime Minister's position. I would have liked to hear it, but I imagine that will not happen tonight.
Anthony Housefather LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience
Madam Chair, can I ask my colleague where his leader is tonight?
The Deputy Chair Liberal Alexandra Mendes
No, that is not a question members may ask.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Madam Chair, I am more than happy to answer that question.
The parliamentary secretary can go back and listen to my leader's speech, which he delivered at around 7 p.m. Actually, I think he could listen to my answer as well. He is asking me a question from the other side of the House. That explains why he was not aware that our leader delivered a speech earlier.
The Deputy Chair Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I would remind hon. members that they are not to ask these types of questions about speeches.
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Madam Chair, there are 700 senior officials of the Iranian regime in Canada, yet the Liberals have only managed to deport one, and they are hiding the identity of some of these persons, one in particular, in their deportation hearings.
Would my colleague agree that it is not in the public interest to hide the identity of Iranian officials whom the CBSA has deemed it necessary to deport from the country when no other person gets these rights?
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Madam Chair, quite honestly, I say this with some reservation because I have not specifically researched the subject of the question. I will therefore be cautious with my answers. Based on the wording and the way it was phrased, and if everything is accurate, then yes, there appears to be a significant degree of laxity. What did she say? She said that only one individual had been deported. That is clearly insufficient and shows an alarming degree of laxity.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Chair, I want to know whether my colleague finds that the consular services provided since the start of the conflict are worthy of a G7 country. Several stories have been reported in the newspapers, such as the Journal de Montréal, and in other media. I get the impression that Canadian consular services are still lagging behind the consular services of many of our allies.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Madam Chair, that is indeed the case. Consular services are falling short. In fact, the newspaper was reporting on how francophones were being answered in English only. That does not measure up. That is unacceptable, but the scariest part is the lack of preparation before things started.
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Madam Chair, for 47 years, the Iranian regime has ruled in the shadow of repression, crushing its own people, jailing and murdering dissidents, massacring tens of thousands and acquiring a nuclear arsenal. This we have made clear in the debate tonight. For a lot of people, the dream of that regime actually crumbling is closer than it has ever been in their lifetime.
There is going to be lots said about the position of Canada, the conflict in Iran, the toppling of a regime and our nation's place in the world, but I am going to talk about what this means right here for us in Canada, because that is what we can control.
This is about building a safer country, free of terrorism, a country where freedom and protection under the law actually mean something for everyone here. We have 700 IRGC agents, whom we know about, who are currently active in this country. The minister stood up today and could not even tell us if there was more than one who has been expelled.
I am a proud member of Parliament who represents a small part of that community. On a regular basis, I get calls from members of that community, members of that community who have run away from that regime. They are scared, with a blurred out background, sitting in their cars, with a blacked out number, away from their homes, because they are terrified that the repression and the reach of that regime is right here in our country. We know of senior members of the regime who have worked out in the same gyms as they have, a neighbourhood gym in my own constituency. We know of senior members of the regime eating in fancy steak houses. We know of senior members of the regime's kids who are studying in universities here.
I cannot tell the House how disappointing it is to hear the Prime Minister have four different positions on this in four days. In fact, I think we heard two more different positions here in this debate, in the House, throughout the day. This is, of course, unclear to the hundreds of thousands of Iranian Canadians who have been in the streets calling for the toppling of the regime, but it is even more concerning to our allies and to our place in the world.
I am going to go back to what we can do right here. There has been violence in our communities. There have been people kidnapped. There have been, potentially, murders because of the reach of the mullah's thugs. I want to speak for a second directly to the Iranian Canadian community. I want to say clearly in the House, because it has not been said: The mullahs are not the history of Iran. The mullahs can never be the history of Iran, and it is our responsibility as the members of Parliament of a G7 country, members of the civilized world, members of a western democracy, to stand up against tyranny at every opportunity we get.
That opportunity has been given to the Prime Minister tonight, and he is nowhere to be found in this debate throughout the day in the House. He has not made his position clear in the House of Commons or to Parliament at all. He has made a position sort of clear on one day. He first said that he supported the strikes. Then he said he regretted that support. Then he said it was in contravention of international law. Then he somehow said that he would join the strikes. Then he said he was not asked to join the strikes. I am going on and on because we can see how ridiculous it is to anybody watching this, such as our allies and those in the community who are suffering from the repression right here in Canada.
I want to make a few things very clear, and I will do it in one minute. I want the government to commit today to expelling every single regime agent who has made Canada their own playground for the activities we see on the other side of the world that have subjugated a population of poets and architects and those yearning for freedom.
I want every single one of those agents gone from this country so that the notion of “Woman, Life, Freedom” actually means something. I want every single Liberal who stood on a stage for the last three years chanting “Woman, Life, Freedom” to actually mean it in the House, to actually show up for this debate and to actually have a position on it.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for her contribution to the debate, even if we disagree. I fully understand why people desperately want to see this regime relegated to the trash heap of history. However, at what time in history and in which country have we seen an armed liberator successfully impose democracy on a country in the aftermath of an attack?
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Madam Chair, when members in the House line up with Iranian Canadians, chanting “Woman, Life, Freedom”, supporting the rights of the LGBT community not to be thrown off a roof or supporting women's rights in Iran, what did they think that meant? What did they think the hundreds of thousands of people in the crowd were chanting for? Did they think it was just going to be a magical democracy that came out of nowhere? Finally, the Iranian people are on the verge of freedom, and we are right there with them.
Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for her strong convictions. I would be interested to hear her thoughts on the consequences and damage of having the Prime Minister, the leader of this country, change positions so many times. What does that say not only to Canadians and to the Iranian diaspora here, but also to the rest of the world?
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Madam Chair, I think it is a concerted strategy. It is a concerted strategy of saying one thing to one group of people at a certain time and an entirely different thing to another group of people. We have seen that strategy play out, where the Prime Minister divides the Canadian population on an issue of foreign affairs without ever taking a position. The only problem now is that everybody sees the game. Everybody sees the game that the Prime Minister is playing, including our allies. It is pretty sad.