SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/13/23 5:04:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things that has been mentioned in a number of speeches is how the shortcomings of this regime has been demonstrated in relation to the regime change that took place, specifically the IRGC and some of the individuals involved with that revolution and how individuals complicit in crimes were given, in some cases, citizenship and whatnot in Canada. I wonder if the member could comment further on how those things need to be addressed so that Canada does not become a safe haven for international criminals?

90 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/13/23 5:04:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very good point. Canada wants to be taken seriously on the international stage, and we used to be taken seriously. When we have loopholes that allow people who are guilty of human rights atrocities around the world to enter our country, to be given citizenship, to be allowed to take up residency and then start to fundraise to fund the acts that they are committing abroad, those human rights violations and atrocities, that needs to be stopped. This bill starts to get us on the right track. It is a good first step, but a lot more needs to be done. I wish the bill did more. I wish it could do more, but it is a little step in the right direction. However, the member is absolutely right. We need to be seriously focused on closing those loopholes. In that way Canada can be taken seriously when we talk about foreign affairs.

158 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Jun/13/23 5:05:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this bill is a good opportunity to discuss the many human rights being trampled on across the world these days. One country we rarely talk about, if at all, is Haiti. Currently, Haiti is a country in turmoil, ravaged by gang-related theft, looting and murder. There are tremendous challenges in my riding involving women who are here in Canada but whose children are still in Haiti, living in very troubled areas, with no adults around. They live with their grandmothers in villages controlled by violent street gangs. It is very difficult to bring these people here. We have had a few success stories. One or two children have been repatriated, but this is extremely difficult to do. Obviously, it is always a bit complicated to intervene in other countries, but what could we do to resolve this atrocious crisis caused by the events in Haiti?

148 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/13/23 5:06:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for that very important question. There is a gentleman who goes to the same church that my wife and I attend. He and his wife are very involved in the administration of adding an orphanage and a school in Haiti. He talked about some of the stories he has heard with respect to what has gone on and how these kids are being blocked from going to school. The orphanages are usually one of the last places to be affected, because everybody, even some of these bad actors, recognizes the importance of the role that orphanages play in their country. However, we are starting to see some of these places that are usually safe havens being abused by these bad actors in these countries. I think Canada has a role to play in stepping in and helping to alleviate the situation there, and to provide some structure so that a reliable, legitimate government can be officially set up in Haiti once again to give the power back to the people so they are not at the mercy of street gangs.

188 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Jun/13/23 5:08:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

Madam Speaker, my private member's bill, Bill C-281, provides parliamentary oversight in order for the Magnitsky act to be triggered. Does the member believe, as I do, that sanctions are not being triggered often enough by the current government, and that there are many human rights violators who are getting off scot-free in this world?

58 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/13/23 5:08:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, I absolutely agree with the member. His bill is a great bill, and it shows leadership in doing more. It is not just taking a baby step; it is taking a big step forward. It is a more concrete measure than even a bill as long as this one is. He was able to do that with a private member's bill, which is fantastic. I applaud him for doing so and for having the courage to do that. I thank him very much for that.

89 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/13/23 5:08:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8 Bill C-281

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to enter into debate in this place to touch on some of the very serious issues that are affecting, in this case, not just my constituents and not just Canadians from coast to coast to coast; the bill truly speaks to Canada's role in the world. Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations, speaks to a gap that has been highlighted, and I would like to explore a bit as to why this bill is being brought forward now. The bill speaks to a gap that exists. There are examples in Canada of those who have been complicit in, profited from or may have even been involved in some of the most heinous crimes globally, whether during a revolution or during regime changes. These people have not specifically been sanctioned in many cases, but were a part of a regime that participated in massive human rights violations. Specifically, I will get to some of those examples as they apply to Iran. We see that there is a gap. When somebody comes to this country and applies for permanent resident status or maybe even citizenship, their application will be judged based on the merits of that application, when it is quite possible that this individual may have been complicit, as I mentioned, in very serious and heinous crimes. What the legislation purports to do, and I will get into some of the challenges, is take a baby step in the right direction, although there seems to be as much ambiguity being added to the process as there is an attempt to address some of the challenges that exist. The bill would help to ensure that this cannot happen. I think it bears mentioning that the changes in this bill are long overdue. Given some of the loopholes that have allowed these perpetrators of human rights violations to come to Canada and the fact that these gaps may exist, the changes are long overdue. Why did it take eight years for that to take place? As we know, a global security challenge has shaken the very foundations of what we all came to take for granted. Specifically, as I am sure members know, that is the conflict, the Russian aggression, against the state of Ukraine. All of a sudden, there it was, although certainly there have been many conflicts, including many that have risen to the point where sanctions have had to be applied. We see how this conflict brought in a whole barrage of sanctions against Russians and those who are sympathetic to, or involved in, the activities of a country that is devastating a state and impacting the people of Ukraine. The fact is that there would be this loophole that actors who may be complicit in abuses can profit from. The current law does not specifically mention that, and that is a key point here. That it is not specifically mentioned would grant someone the possibility of coming to Canada to be given safe haven. As we heard in the expert testimony before the Senate committee and as we heard from stakeholders on this subject, there is some ambiguity about what exactly the bill would allow the government to do versus what the bill is being said to do. I would just highlight that it was long overdue to see these loopholes fixed, but in typical fashion, the government is proposing a bill, in this case going through the Senate, that is admirable in its intentions. The government gets an “A” for the announcement, but when it comes to the delivery and the implications of what is being proposed, there remain many outstanding questions. I think that is a troubling trend that we have seen across a host of issues. The government, over the last eight years, has been really good at the politics of legislation; however, it fails in the actual hard work of governing, and that is truly what is key when it comes to so many things in our country. It takes hard work. It is not just about announcements. It is easy to stand in front of a podium and make an announcement; it is a whole lot harder to actually get down and get to work. As a farmer, I know that if someone simply thought about and talked about the planting season, that person certainly will not be successful. Work is required to put the seed in the ground and to make sure that it can come to the point of harvest in the fall and everything associated with that. It is the same thing with vineyards. There is a burgeoning wine sector in the Peterborough area. It is very exciting, and my colleague and I have had some chats about it with, I think, the chair of the wine caucus as well. I mention that as well. I will take this opportunity, since my colleague is here talking about one of his passions, to say that it was a pleasure for me to see Bill C-281 pass just this past week, I believe with unanimous support, and how important it is that parliamentary oversight was given to the Magnitsky sanctions regime here in Canada, that Parliament could trigger that, and that there would have to be a mechanism for reporting to this place to ensure accountability to our democratic infrastructure. The reason I believe this is important, and let me highlight a few examples of why this is important, is that we have seen an increasing disconnect between the executive government in our nation and Parliament. That is incredibly concerning for a whole host of reasons, but it very directly applies to what we are talking about here today. Bill C-281, in one of its four parts, specifically addresses making sure that accountability comes back to the people's House here in the House of Commons and that there is that reporting mechanism. Further, we see a disconnect, and I will not get into the myriad examples outside of this issue, in the Americanization of the separation between the executive and legislative branches of Parliament. That is very concerning. That is not how our system is meant to operate. Our Prime Minister sits in the House of Commons and our cabinet ministers are members of the House of Commons, and it is absolutely key that there be that close connection between the executive government and the legislative branch of our government. When there is a separation, we see that many of the issues that Canadians are facing, and the scandals and the erosion of trust in our institutions and whatnot, can be pointed back to the fact that we have a government that refuses to acknowledge the will that is expressed by the people in the House of Commons. That can not be highlighted any more clearly than when it comes to the issue of the IRGC. What is unique about Westminster democracy is that it is Parliament that is the chief arbiter of the nation. This principle of Parliamentary supremacy is absolutely key to how we do business in this country, and yet we have, increasingly, the Liberals taking things for granted. They may have confidence on financial measures and whatnot, but when it comes to actually addressing issues, of course, we see that Liberals reject the will of Parliament and by nature the will of the people when it comes to calling a public inquiry into foreign election interference. We also saw that happen, very troublingly, when it came to the issue of the IRGC. It was this House that voted in favour of listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity. This House voted in favour of that listing multiple times. It is dumbfounding, quite frankly, that the government would refuse to take that action when the people of this country, by nature of this institution of the House of Commons, the keystone of democratic involvement in our country, have said that this should be the case. The Liberals have tried to explain that away, but it is that disconnect that exists. It may be inconvenient to the political whims of the government on a whole host of issues but we need to get back to the roots of why this place exists. I have highlighted some of the challenges, but let me finish by highlighting one challenge that I think merits significant attention, and that is the increasingly unstable circumstance of the situation in Asia, with China and some of the gestures that are being made toward Taiwan, and the issues with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There are a whole host of other issues. It behooves all of us to make sure that we get this right to ensure that Canada cannot be a place where international war criminals or those who have profited from war crimes and the worst possible actions can come for safe haven. I support this bill. It takes a small step in the right direction, although there is certainly much more work that needs to be done.

1539 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Jun/13/23 5:19:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was well thought out. We are talking about economic sanctions against people who are essentially terrorists. The intention of that is to inflict financial and economic pain on them. If the whole western world comes together on that, it can have a very positive effect. Unfortunately, on the other hand, we are still doing business with Russia. The Prime Minister was asked if he could do something to facilitate the sale of liquid natural gas to Germany, and he told the German chancellor that we do not see a business case for that. Germany is still doing business with Russia and, in that way, Russia is able to finance its war against Ukraine. Could the member comment on that?

125 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/13/23 5:20:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a great question and one that strikes close to home, especially representing what is the beating heart of Canada's oil and gas sector and the beating heart of Canada's energy industry. It is shameful that a country that has the capacity and the resources to supply not only our domestic needs but also the world's with the clean, reliable energy required to displace that dictator and despot oil, that dictator and despot LNG, just like that which is financing Russia's war machine. We have the potential to do that. I think the only people who do not see a business case for Canadian LNG is the Prime Minister and his activist friends in the Liberal cabinet. When it comes to the world, it are desperate for it, yet the Prime Minister had the audacity to stand beside the German chancellor, who had asked us nicely to facilitate the export of our resources and import them to Germany, but the Prime Minister said no. That is a stain on our country's ability to address it. When it comes to sanctions generally, the reason sanctions are effective is because they get to the heart of the money to strike down some of the economic infrastructure that allows these regimes, these individuals and these organizations to carry out their duties. Sanctions are important, but we also need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to get our resources to market so we can displace that dictator crude.

256 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Jun/13/23 5:21:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. The member touched on this briefly, but when we look at Canada's place in the world with our natural resources and what they mean for us, in a sense it has to do with our public safety here in Canada. We can look at where our resources are coming from and where people are escaping from. We are buying and importing resources from the countries people are trying to come to Canada to escape from, yet we are indirectly, and sometimes directly, supporting those very regimes. Does my colleague have any further comments on that?

105 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/13/23 5:22:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. We need to be using every tool at our disposal to make sure that Canada stands up for the peace, freedom and democracy we are known for. I think back to when Canada was seen to become a nation, such as the battles we fought in France during the First World War, the bravery of our soldiers during the Second World War and the peacekeeping missions we participated in. We have a role to play in the world. It is unfortunate that we have seen Canada play a diminished role under the leadership of the Prime Minister. We need to absolutely assert our place as that voice of principle on the world stage. Specifically, I would reference a National Post headline that reported, “Ex-Tehran police chief linked to rights abuses spotted working out at Toronto-area gym”. That is a headline from a newspaper in our country. We have seen examples where individuals who have been linked with significant human rights abuses are being given safe haven here, and the ability to prosper and enjoy the rights and freedoms that we have, when they have taken away the rights, freedoms and lives of so many in regimes around the world. Canada has to be better, and I believe that the Conservative vision being laid out by the member for Carleton is that clear vision needed not only by Canada, but also, I truly believe, the world.

246 words

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

Jun/13/23 5:23:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot for that excellent summary of Bill S-8 and what it means to Canada, how it falls short and how the government falls short in meeting the challenges of the geopolitical landscape as it is playing out around the world. As the member mentioned, this is simply some amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The bill addresses the issue of sanctions. It would make sure that individuals who have been sanctioned and should not be admissible to Canada do not actually make it into Canada. The bill is most specifically a response to what happened in Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal and immoral. It has devastated a country that was simply looking for peace. As someone who has family roots that are at least in part vested in Ukraine, I, like so many Canadians, was exceedingly angry at what we saw Vladimir Putin do to a country that was struggling to develop the prosperity and security it deserves. Now, with the actions that Russia has taken in Ukraine, the whole global geopolitical and geosecurity environment has been turned on its head. The bill before us purports to tighten Canada's sanctions regime to ensure that no one implicated in illegal foreign acts of aggression and illegal foreign acts of war could enter Canada. However, right off the bat, I have two comments to make. First, there is no indication right now that foreigners who are inadmissible to Canada are getting into Canada. Therefore, it appears that our current sanctions regime is working. I do understand efforts to be proactive and plug gaps that might exist. That is the first point that I will make. There is no indication that foreigners who are inadmissible to Canada are getting into Canada. Second, it is troubling that this bill emanates not from the House, but from the Senate, which, as members know, is unelected. One would expect that the Liberal government, if it considered our national security and global security to be that important, would table that bill here in the House first and then let it go to the other place for further, sober second thought. Since the bill intends to strengthen our ability to prevent persons who have been sanctioned from actually entering Canada, it does so first by establishing a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on those very sanctions. That is the first part of it. The second part of the bill proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility to include not only sanctions that are imposed on a foreign country, but also sanctions that are imposed on a foreign entity or organization, or a foreign person, because we want to capture everybody who would be implicated in foreign acts of aggression. Third, the bill would expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions that are made in section 4 of SEMA, or the Special Economic Measures Act. Finally, the bill would amend the regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety would have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on those very sanctions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That may all sound very complicated, but the bottom line is this: All this bill does is purport to plug existing gaps. I would suggest to the government, rather than being in reactive mode, why is it not proactive in addressing the challenges that Canada faces on the security front? For example, why is the government not actively addressing the issue of foreign interference in our elections? Why is it not actively addressing the issue of intellectual property theft by the regime in Beijing? Why is it not addressing those individuals who were implicated in the acts of terrorism and intolerance in the country of Iran, who have now found a safe haven in our country and are seen walking the streets of our cities such as Toronto? Why will it not be proactive in addressing geopolitical security issues, rather than always responding in a reactive way and missing the boat? We will be supporting this legislation, but it does not reflect a thoughtful, proactive approach to the very real challenges that face Canada today.

711 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC)

Jun/13/23 5:30:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-311

Mr. Speaker, in the first hour of debate on Bill C-311, the violence against pregnant women act, there was a lot of push-back by the Liberals and the NDP on issues not in the bill. The lack of care and rigour in this debate should be distressing to Canadians who are paying attention at home. It is abundantly clear that this legislation is about one thing, which is protecting vulnerable women through a Criminal Code amendment. It is very important that this debate centres on what is before us. We are looking to consistency in sentencing across the country as an objective so that pregnancy, as an aggravating factor, is no longer discretionary but mandatory to consider. I will read the bill in its entirety into the record so there is clarity for all those following the debate. Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violence against pregnant women), states, beginning with the preamble: Whereas Parliament wishes to denounce and deter violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing; Now, therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: The short title states, “This Act may be cited as the Violence Against Pregnant Women Act.” Under “Criminal Code” it states: Paragraph 718.‍2(a) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.‍1): (ii.‍2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant, (ii.‍3) evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim, That is it. There is a preamble, a short title, and brief amendments to beef up sentencing if a violent crime is committed against a pregnant woman. This is common-sense legislation that protects women who choose to carry their baby to term. Nowhere in this legislation is there any reference to the unborn or reproductive issues. Making this debate about something other than protecting women is unfair and uncaring. This is where the their fake feminism is exposed. Just last week, it was reported that Paul Bernardo was transferred to a medium security prison. Conservatives brought forward a unanimous consent motion calling for an immediate return of this brutal serial rapist and killer to a maximum security prison. We were shouted down by the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands, and that made the intentions of the Liberals clear. They have decided to defend one of the most disgusting men in Canadian history, rather than his female victims and their families. This is misogyny. When the Liberals vote against Bill C-311, they will be voting against women and against choice. They will once again be protecting violent men, not vulnerable women. Conservatives are on the side of women and victims.

493 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 5:33:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member attributed something that I apparently did yesterday to me. I certainly did not do that. The member might want to reflect on that. The next time, before she makes accusations, she might want to know what she is talking about.

49 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 5:34:08 p.m.
Watch

That is descending into a fair amount of debate. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock is rising on the same point of order.

26 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/13/23 5:34:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when the unanimous consent motion was called. The member said “no”. I rarely make a mistake about what the member does.

30 words

Mistake

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 5:34:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it was not me who said “no”. This member should apologize, because she is lying right now.

21 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/13/23 5:34:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member just called me a liar in this House, and then walked out. Now he is back. That is not only unparliamentary language. We can all check Hansard and see what happened. He—

37 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/13/23 5:34:48 p.m.
Watch

Check Hansard then before you speak next time. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

13 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/13/23 5:35:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the floor; that this member is shouting over me when I have the floor is also unparliamentary. He is a disgrace.

25 words