Sean Fraser

[Foreign Affairs, May 9th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the opening comment, I would like to point out to the hon. member that I am capable of answering the question. I have an academic background in public international law and I understand the issues at play and the government does take them seriously.

Listing an individual or a group as a terrorist entity is a public means of identifying their involvement with terrorism and curtailing their support, but listing is just one component of the international and domestic response to terrorism.

With that in mind, I want to reiterate that Canada has already taken action against Iran and the IRGC specifically, such as listing their special forces responsible for extraterritorial activities. These actions are broadly consistent with our international partners, who have designated components of the IRGC under their own sanctions regimes.

I also want to restate that the assessment process for possible listings is ongoing even as I speak. Before action is taken, the listing process does require the necessary due diligence.

I want to assure the hon. member that we are taking all steps to ensure that Canadians are kept safe and that we are not put under unnecessary threat from terrorist activities abroad.

[Foreign Affairs, May 9th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the government is committed to ensuring that Canada takes all appropriate actions to counter terrorist threats to our country, our people, our way of life and our interests around the world.

I can assure the hon. member that officials have been working diligently to assess the possibility of listing Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under the Criminal Code. Assessing an entity for listing is an iterative process that requires a thorough review.

Under the Criminal Code, an entity must meet the legal threshold of reasonable grounds to believe they have knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity or is knowingly acting on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with a listed entity. This is determined by preparing a criminal or security intelligence report, which documents the entity's activities. The report is reviewed by independent counsel at the Department of Justice to ensure that the entity meets the legal threshold for listing. If the Minister of Public Safety agrees that this legal test is met, he may recommend to cabinet that the entity be listed.

When an entity is placed on the list, banks and financial institutions freeze its assets, and Canadians are not allowed to knowingly deal with such assets. Once listed, an entity falls within the definition of a terrorist group in the Criminal Code. This can render certain terrorism-related offences applicable and can help to support possible criminal investigations and prosecutions of those offences. This includes offences related to terrorist financing, recruitment and training and leaving Canada to knowingly participate in a terrorist activity.

Listing an entity under the Criminal Code is one of the many tools Canada uses to combat terrorist financing, operations and support for terrorist activities.

There are restrictive measures already imposed against entities and individuals within the IRGC and against Iran that have an effect similar to a listing. These include the listing of the IRGC's special forces as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. These forces are the branch of the IRGC responsible for extraterritorial operations and are Iran's primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorist groups and operations abroad. They provide arms, funding and paramilitary training to other listed groups, including the Taliban, the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, all of which are also listed under the Criminal Code.

Other existing measures against the IRGC include the sanctions imposed under the Special Economic Measures Act. Individuals and entities listed under this legislation are subject to an asset freeze and a dealing prohibition. In addition, the regulations explicitly target IRGC organizations, such as the IRGC Air Force, Missile Command and Navy and several members of its senior leadership.

Furthermore, Canada has listed Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. This listing allows victims of terrorism a means to seek financial compensation from Iran.

Members can be assured that Canada is looking at all possible options to constrain the activities of Iran that threaten national security, and we continue to consider whether and to what extent a listing is the appropriate mechanism.

[The Environment, May 9th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, in the short time I have to respond, I want to reiterate our support for the preservation of our natural environment to ensure that important properties are protected for future generations.

As I mentioned earlier, and this is an important point, under the Canada Marine Act, as a matter of law, the Windsor Port Authority has been given the legal and administrative autonomy to determine its own course of action, while taking into consideration the priorities of the local community, including the environmental stewardship of the Port of Windsor.

We respect the autonomy of the Windsor Port Authority in this regard, which has been granted previously by Parliament. We therefore encourage the parties to continue their discussions in good faith in order to reach this important outcome that could potentially protect the area for future generations.

[The Environment, May 9th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the concerns expressed by my hon. colleague on the status of Ojibway Shores.

I share his belief that the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas is of great importance. I note he began his remarks by citing the recent United Nations report highlighting that one million of the world's eight million species were facing the threat of extinction.

Before I deal specifically with the Ojibway Shores question, I want to remind him that in budget 2018 our government laid out a $1.3-billion investment in nature and conservation, which is unquestionably the largest single investment of its kind in the history of Canada.

Our government takes the concerns associated with the management of Ojibway Shores very seriously.

The Minister of Transport was entrusted with the responsibility to ensure that Canada's transportation system functioned in the best interest of our national economy, while preserving our natural environment through prudent, sustainable management. Achieving an appropriate balance between these two areas is a major priority of our government.

Under the Canada Marine Act, the Windsor Port Authority has been given the legal and administrative autonomy to determine its own course of action, taking into consideration economic, social and environmental factors, as well as the viewpoints and priorities of the port's users, stakeholders and local communities.

The Windsor Port Authority has therefore the responsibility and the legal authority to carry out day-to-day operations and is entirely responsible for managing port lands, including federal land such as the Ojibway Shores.

On January 30 of last year, the Windsor Port Authority publicly stated that the industrial development of Ojibway Shores would be placed on hold, that it supported the idea of preserving the 33-acres of environmentally sensitive land and that it would give due consideration to any reasonable land exchange proposal that could achieve this important objective.

It is also my understanding that the Windsor Port Authority and the City of Windsor are currently exploring different scenarios that could result in a mutually beneficial exchange of properties that would include the Ojibway Shores. A balanced exchange of this nature would permit the long-term management and preservation of Ojibway Shores, while allowing the Windsor Port Authority to continue pursuing its objectives for increased economic development and trade benefiting the Windsor-Essex region.

I want to commit to the member that protecting nature and conservation is a major priority not just for me personally but our government. We have made the single largest investment in nature and conservation in the history of Canada. I look forward to continuing to work toward this important objective.

[The Environment, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I trust the hon. member knows that there was an artificial suppression of emission levels as a result of the forest fires in Fort McMurray. It is disappointing that we rely on these kinds of anomalies to try to make a political point.

When it comes to the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, when it comes to tax measures, we have actually phased out eight tax measures to date, and we have launched a consultation to identify further ineffective, non-tax fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.

We are going to move forward in that direction. Our climate plan has over 50 measures that are going to help reduce emissions. We have become a global leader when it comes to protecting the environment, because we know that climate change is real and we have an obligation to do something about it.

[Carbon Pricing, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's feigned sanctimony and frankly his hypocrisy are disappointing in the extreme. He knows that in provinces where our plan applies, eight out of 10 families will be better off at the end of the year.

What is extraordinarily disappointing is that when he had the chance to support the middle-class tax cut for nine million Canadians that raised taxes on the wealthiest 1%, he voted against it.

When he had the chance to support the Canada child benefit, ending sending child care cheques to millionaires so we could put more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families, he voted against it.

When he had the opportunity to support vulnerable low-income seniors, he voted against it too.

Now he stands up and has the audacity to lecture me on—

[Carbon Pricing, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have been taking questions in this chamber for a number of months from the Conservatives, and not once have they asked us a question that indicated they were willing to do more to protect our environment.

The fact is that climate change is an existential threat, not only to Canada but to the entire world community. The fact is that we have put forward a plan that has 50 measures that are going to combat climate change.

The Conservatives are trying to grab lightning and campaign on misinformation that they think will pander to the masses. They do not have any ideas, so they mislead Canadians about ours. It is time they took climate change seriously, because that is what Canadians want us to do.

With respect to our plan, we know it is going to leave them—

[Carbon Pricing, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's fascination with our plan curious, since he knows that it simply does not fly in Quebec. One thing I can confirm is that Quebecers know that climate change is real. They believe that we have an obligation and an opportunity to do something about it.

We know what the solutions are in facing the greatest challenge of our time. We know that the most effective thing we can do to transition to a low-carbon economy is to put a price on pollution and return revenues to Canadian families.

If members do not believe me, they can look to Mark Cameron, Stephen Harper's former director of policy, or Preston Manning. They could even look to Doug Ford's chief budget adviser, who actually testified to that in the Senate in 2016.

This time—

[Carbon Pricing, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, on his final point, I direct the member to the decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. It confirmed that because revenues go directly to residents, this is a regulatory charge and not a tax.

With respect to his allegation that the cost of goods and services is going to somehow increase, again I will refer to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. The Parliamentary Budget Officer corrected certain Conservative MPs by pointing out that his analysis factored in goods and services. He confirmed that eight out of 10 Canadian families would have more money in their pockets after the year had ended.

This plan is going to have a meaningful impact on emissions and make families better off. It is disappointing that the Conservatives will not do the right thing and are campaigning to take money from their constituents.

[The Environment, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is using twisted logic in an attempt to mislead Canadians, which should not be surprising, because the only climate plan the Conservatives put forward has been to misrepresent our plan, because they simply do not have one of their own.

The fact of the matter is that people do not have to take my word for it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that eight out of 10 Canadian families who are subject to the federal backstop will have more money in their pockets after the climate action incentive. It is disappointing in the extreme that the Conservatives will not put forward a plan of their own and instead are campaigning on a commitment to take money away from their constituents.