SoVote

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

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

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

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

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

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