44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 5:34:48 p.m.
- Watch
Check Hansard then before you speak next time.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 5:35:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for saying that the member was lying. What the member is saying is not true.
She should check Hansard before she makes that accusation in this House, because what she is saying is simply and categorically false.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 5:36:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that member just turned to me, made a face and gave the finger to me. I do not even know how you categorize that in the House of Commons.
Some hon. members: To all of us.
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Mr. Speaker, he did it to all of us and specifically to me. That member should be sanctioned in the strongest possible terms. He should be thrown out of the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 5:36:43 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to take a break for a second here, and I am going to consult. I was just consulting with the table officers, so I did not see what happened. What I am going to do is review the videotapes, because cameras are on all the time. We will review those cameras. We will go in back and look at it.
I will remind people that we are in the House of Commons, and we should respect each other at all times, even though we disagree, vehemently sometimes, on issues that are before us. To accuse and flip the bird or give the finger is probably something that should not be seen in this House at any time.
I am going to go to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, and then I will go back to the hon. Conservative whip.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 5:37:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that I was coming into the Chamber right at that moment. I can tell you that I did see the member for Kingston and the Islands make an objectionable sign with his finger to the opposition.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 5:37:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I clearly saw the member for Kingston and the Islands give the finger, which is a symbol for a very specific phrase. Again, I would agree with my colleague that an apology is in order.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 5:38:13 p.m.
- Watch
All right, since I cannot ask someone who might not be here to do something, I will go back and review it—
An hon. member: He is here.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 5:39:03 p.m.
- Watch
How about we go back to the item that we are supposed to be dealing with? We are going to go back and look at the video. We will take into consideration the things that we heard. Then we will come up with a response as soon as possible.
The hon. member for Brampton South.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
