Skip to main content Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
Skip to Document Navigation Skip to Document Content

42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 312

CONTENTS

Monday, June 11, 2018




House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 148 
l
NUMBER 312 
l
1st SESSION 
l
42nd PARLIAMENT 

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Monday, June 11, 2018

Speaker: The Honourable Geoff Regan

    The House met at 11 a.m.

Prayer



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Private Members' Business]

  (1100)  

[English]

Visitability

    The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion.
    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Motion No. 157. This motion recognizes the importance of visitability. It also prompts the government to address the topic of visitability in the accessibility legislation to be introduced in the House. These are important, much-needed measures. I am pleased to support this motion.
    At one time, disabled persons often led a segregated existence. Society did not accommodate them well. Those old attitudes really started to change after the First World War. Thousands of heroic veterans suffered debilitating injuries in that bloody conflict. They lost body parts. They were rendered blind or deaf. When they returned, they simply needed to be accommodated. It forced people to finally start thinking about the needs of the disabled.
    U.S. President Roosevelt took great efforts to hide his own disability. He did not want to be seen as weak. He had an agreement with the media never to take pictures of him looking like he was disabled, so as not to appear to be weak. There are plenty of reminders from history that attitudes can take a long time to change. As far as I can tell, visitability is a neologism. It is a great addition to our vocabulary. Visitability is a measure of a place's ease of access for people with disabilities. I did a quick search of the word's etymology and found it had been used a few times in the 19th and 20th centuries, but in the past it did not mean what we are talking about today. The use of the word only spiked in the 21st century, and I am glad it did. It shows that our society is taking the needs of people with disabilities more seriously. We are talking about it more. We are really thinking about how to make the lives of those with disabilities easier and more equitable.
     I am proud that our former Conservative government was part of that trend. The home accessibility tax credit allowed Canadians with disabilities or those over 65 to save 15%, up to $10,000, on renovations to their residence. That is a lot of money. It is a great help to people paying for walk-in bathtubs, wheel-in showers, and wheelchair ramps. It really makes a difference to anyone who needs ease of access and visitability. Measures like these are of great help to seniors, in particular, and allow them to continue to live their life to the fullest and often much longer in their own residence where they would prefer to be. The second credit, the home renovation tax credit, was introduced in 2009. One in three households took advantage of it. It saved three million Canadians an average of $700. That is an incredible number of people opting to take advantage of that federal program. It really demonstrates that Canadians appreciated it. We had intended to make that credit permanent. Those credits made a big difference and supported visitability, so I am happy to see this motion would encourage the government to continue in the same vein.
    This motion highlights sound practices and accessible construction with a specific nod to visitability. I know the construction industry has made enormous strides in building more accessible venues. At one time, such considerations were an afterthought, which was a shame. Today, businesses would not build a new storefront without considering the needs of those who might need greater accessibility. Municipalities also deserve a tremendous amount of credit. They have really shown leadership in making their jurisdictions more accessible and improving visitability. Municipalities have often taken leadership in demonstrating what is most needed for their citizens, and I applaud municipalities for doing this. In my riding of Bow River, many municipalities have done incredible work in this regard, so it is great that we are recognizing this positive trend and encouraging those who have not yet adopted it to get on board.
     We want the future to be accessible to everyone, and I am pleased the House is taking action to endorse this positive future. We all know someone who could benefit from promoting greater visitability. There is not one member in this place representing a riding without constituents whose lives would not be made richer, much better, and more accessible.

  (1105)  

     I hope the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities indeed addresses this topic of visitability in the upcoming accessibility legislation. We need the legislation. It has been two and a half years. We understand it needs to be introduced soon for the government to get it done. This is an incredibly important matter. It is a non-partisan issue I hope all parties can agree upon. We have been waiting for this act for a long time, two and a half years to three years, and we need it soon.
    However, there are numerous other bills before the House the government has waited far too long to introduce. Many of them are complicated and make enormous changes to important issues like criminal justice and electoral reform. This is an important issue for many people in our society. The government has had a challenge with its legislative agenda, so here we are trying to rush through debate on this private member's motion, which should take priority. The government should have devoted less time to omnibus bills and put this one on the books so we could all support it.
    I know we have been through many ministers of sport and persons with disabilities. There seems to have been a bit of upheaval there, but hopefully now the file will be stabilized and the minister will be able to move this forward. The people need to know that the government has not forgotten them. The people need visitability. This legislation needs to be introduced, and soon. I hope this motion will finally get the government to focus on this important file. I thank the member for Tobique—Mactaquac for introducing it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying how much I respect the member who is sponsoring this motion, which we will support. I have enjoyed spending time with my colleague on numerous occasions, and I think he does excellent work, especially on the agriculture file. I thank him for moving this motion and for working so hard to promote visitability. I agree with him that all Canadians, regardless of age or physical ability, should be able to live and age at home.
    However, I also encourage the sponsor of the motion to exert more pressure on ministers to introduce an accessibility bill soon. Many groups across the country have been waiting for that for a very long time. An accessibility bill could include visitability as part of a more comprehensive approach.
    I listened to the debate that occurred after Motion No. 157 was moved, and I recall my colleague, the member sponsoring the bill, making the following comments on April 30:
    Motion No. 157 is meant to introduce the concept of minimum accessibility measures designed to accommodate everyone, including our aging demographic, allowing individuals to stay in their homes for as long as they so desire, and to address the high population of persons with a disability in Canada....
    I think it is therefore essential that visitability be one of the many elements of the planned accessibility legislation. The government has been holding consultations for the development of its accessibility legislation since 2016, and while I am aware that the party opposite wants to get this right, after eight months of consultation, 18 public meetings, one youth forum, and nine thematic round tables, not to mention an online survey and input from 90 organizations, I think it is time for the government to table a bill.
    The public consultations are over, and the minister's report was released in May 2017. That is a little over a year ago. I am actually astonished that this government did not plan to make an announcement during National AccessAbility Week, which was from May 27 to June 2. I hope the government will not wait until the next National AccessAbility Week to launch its bill.
    The Liberals have been in office for almost four years now. The government had announced that it would table its accessibility bill in February 2018. There are only a few days left before the summer break, and there is nothing about this bill on the schedule before adjournment. I also encourage my colleague to urge the government to invest in this area, because there was nothing in the last budget for the planned accessibility bill or for visitability initiatives.
    I want to talk about accessibility because I believe that it is time to do more. Our population is aging, and we have known for a long time that the unemployment rate among persons with disabilities is far higher than that for the general population. According to Statistics Canada, the placement rate for people with disabilities was 49% in 2015, compared to 79% in the general population. Advocacy groups are hoping that the new accessibility legislation will offer practical solutions to the very real problems experienced on a daily basis.
    James Hicks, the national coordinator of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, said that the consultations were more an airing of grievances than a forum for tabling ideas on how to bring about change. Now he hopes the new legislation will go beyond merely aspirational statements, which is what we would like to see, too.
    Universal accessibility is a fundamental right that affects not only persons with disabilities, but also seniors and people with temporary mobility issues, such as someone using crutches because of a broken leg. We also need to think about parents with strollers, people with chronic pain, and so on. The concept of universal visitability applies to many different groups of people.
    I would like to commend the City of Saint-Hyacinthe for all of the work it has done over the past 20 years, since 1998, in order to make our city more accessible for everyone. I worked on that file myself when I was a city councillor for the Saint-Sacrement district and was responsible for accessibility to municipal goods and services.

  (1110)  

    In 2011, the City of Saint-Hyacinthe, in co-operation with the Table de concertation des organismes œuvrant auprès des personnes handicapées, undertook an initiative to identify problems and implement the necessary solutions. I participated in that initiative as the head of that organization.
    Since then, municipal departments have implemented hundreds of measures. They made street parking with timed meters free for anyone with a mobility impairment parking permit, they implemented the Voisins secours program to help residents during emergency evacuations, they installed automatic door openers on many municipal buildings, and they made parks more accessible for strollers, walkers, and wheelchairs.
    I now look forward to contributing as a federal MP through legislation on accessibility and visitability.
    My colleague will be pleased to learn that Saint-Hyacinthe has 18 municipal sites and 140 properties that are visitable. Thanks to our ongoing efforts, collaborative plans, and partnerships with many organizations, Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale have made great strides in improving visitability and accessibility for seniors and people with reduced mobility or disabilities.
    I also want to acknowledge the organizations in my riding that work hard every day on improving accessibility. I am thinking of, for example, the association of parents of children with disabilities in Richelieu-Val-Maska; the handicapped transportation service in Acton Vale; the Maskoutain paratransit users group, RMUTA; the umbrella group for paratransit services in the Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale region; Parrainage civique, a citizen advocacy group in the Acton RCM and Maskoutains RCM; the St-Hyacinthe-Acton MS Society; the Richelieu-Yamaska disability associations groups, commonly referred to as GAPHRY; and Zone Loisir Montérégie. I am very proud of the work of all of these organizations.
    I have the honour of representing an extraordinary organization, the citizen advocacy group in the Acton RCM and Maskoutains RCM, which is celebrating its 35th anniversary. Parrainage civique is a non-profit organization whose mission is to improve the social participation of persons with intellectual or physical disabilities, or persons living with autism spectrum disorder, by pairing them up with volunteers and through integration and awareness activities.
    I am very proud to have worked there. I want to thank the following people for their exceptional work: Chantal Lavallée, the executive director of Parrainage civique, and the members of the board of directors, namely Serge Cabana, Jacques Julien, Paul St-Germain, Sophie Martin, Irénée Chênevert, Éric Rivard, and Carole Martin. Thank you to Parrainage civique, and happy 35th anniversary.
    I would like to thank my colleague once again for his motion, which we will be supporting, because all levels of government must promote accessibility and visitability.
    In my speech, I spoke about the exceptional work of the cities of Saint-Hyacinthe and Acton Vale. In Quebec, the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec does an exceptional job of promoting universal accessibility. Every municipality is required by law to have a municipal councillor responsible for accessibility to goods and services. Every city must prepare an annual action plan for universal accessibility and provide a report to the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec. Municipal and provincial governments are on board, at least in Quebec.
    It is therefore important that the federal government have an accessibility law to make sure that all organizations that we oversee ensure accessibility. Furthermore, we must ensure that our laws promote the visitability of every home because anyone could, some day, need greater accessibility in the home they live in. We should have this vision for all homes.

  (1115)  

    I sincerely hope that my colleague will be able to persuade his colleagues on the other side of the House and include this principle in the accessibility legislation that we are impatiently awaiting.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac for giving me the opportunity to speak to his motion, Motion No. 157, about the importance visitability can have for all Canadians, of all ages and abilities, particularly persons with a physical disability, aging individuals, seniors, and their families in Canada.
    I would like to highlight a couple of key benefits that visitability can bring to the senior demographic, specifically since my hon. colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac mentioned my motion calling for a national seniors strategy, Motion No. 106. This is something that must include the aspects of minimum standards for accessible housing.
     Visitable homes can give the opportunity to welcome and include guests who use a mobility device, such as a wheelchair or walker, into residential homes, which would help reduce the isolation that can be experienced by seniors and persons with a disability and increase opportunities for social interaction and inclusive communities.
    Also, as people age, visitable homes can help residents age in place and live at home longer, avoiding the necessity to move into an institutional setting. A house with a non-step entrance can also help reduce the number of falls and stairs-related injuries of seniors, which in turn would help save health care costs.
    Visitable housing can reduce the length of hospital visits, something that seniors tend to experience more frequently than those who are younger. Because of accessibility features in the home, people can return home more quickly following an injury or a diagnosis of a mobility disability.
    When visitability features are planned from the outset, costs can be negligible. Retrofits of a conventional home to make it visitable cost significantly more than making the building visitable from the outset. That is from the Canadian Centre on Disability Studies in 2017.
    Speaking of costs, it is also important to note that incorporating visitability features in the design stage of building a new home reduces the cost of modifying the home to meet the changing accessibility needs of residents over the course of their lifespan. This means that the more I am aware of now, the better I can plan for my future when it comes to decisions about my home or in the event I need or wish to move homes.
    Research from VisitAble Housing Canada indicates that, with planning, the cost of a non-step entrance can be less than $250, and wider doors are as little as $5 to $25. On average, in new home builds, main floor accessible bathrooms do not cost anything additional when planned properly.
     I would also like to point out that there are additional low-cost visitable design features, as cited by the Canadian Centre on Disability Studies in 2017, which may be added to improve accessibility and the ability for all of us to age in place. They include lever door handles; lever kitchen and bathroom faucets; raised electrical outlets; lowered climate controls; lowered light switches; and reinforced bathroom walls for future installation of grab bars or ceiling track lifts. These are very important features to plan ahead for.
    I have worked as a school board trustee for Conseil scolaire catholique du Nouvel-Ontario, as a municipal councillor in West Nipissing, and as a regional director of the Canadian Hearing Society, working closely with the March of Dimes and the CNIB. I understand and have seen first-hand the many struggles faced by the not-for-profit sectors and the clients they serve.
    A couple of weeks ago, I had the honour of participating in the official launch of the valley community ramp project, thanks to the Access2all foundation and its co-founders Dan Lebrun and Nadine Law. Access2all is a not-for-profit community group based out of Greater Sudbury. Its mission is to promote an inclusive community by opening doors and removing barriers, as Motion No. 157 seeks to do. Access2all does this by donating custom-built ramps to the business community. However, this project would not be possible without the support and participation of many community partners.

  (1120)  

[Translation]

     This project was launched at Bitter Bill's Ice Cream Parlour in Val Caron. Those in attendance included enthusiastic students from the Grade 7-8 leadership group “Val Coeur On”, led by Chantale Goudreau from École élémentaire Jean-Paul II, as well as partnership representatives from Cambrian College and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local 2486, in Azilda. All were present to celebrate the delivery of the donated custom built access ramp.
    The students at École Jean-Paul II partnered with Access2all to see how they could help make their community more accessible. The students started off by doing an accessibility audit to see if there was a need in their community. They then chose a few businesses and organizations that they felt should be accessible to their peers, such as Bitter Bill's Ice Cream Parlour and Chico's Bowl and Sports Lounge, in the Valley.
    The ramps were then painted and given to the organizations by the École Jean-Paul II students. All construction materials for these ramps were donated by local lumber stores, including Rona in Valley East. Thanks to the volunteers and all of the community partners, Access2All has been able to pursue this program.
    There can be no doubt that this initiative has numerous benefits. For example, thanks to this project, little Katie, a student at Jean-Paul II elementary school, can now go get ice cream with her friends, something she could not do before, because the ice cream parlour did not have a wheelchair ramp.
    Having worked in the non-profit sector and in accessibility, I strongly believe in building an environment that is accessible to all.
    I commend Dan and Nadine for founding Access2all. It is a fantastic initiative. I also want to send out a special thanks to Jean-Paul II elementary school, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2486, in Azilda, Cambrian College, Rona, and all the volunteers who made this project a reality. This initiative is a great example of the kinds of solutions and results that are possible when the community gets involved and works hard together. That is why Motion No. 157, the visitability motion we are discussing today, is so important.

  (1125)  

[English]

    There is no doubt that this initiative is a shining example of the solutions and results we can come up with when community leaders get together and work hard to ensure everyone has access to the services and activities in the community.
     Motion No. 157 is important to all Canadians. Visitability is about social justice for all. It is about providing accessible places to all: our families, our communities, our neighbours, our seniors, people with an ability, and our young families.
     Visitability is important. Motion No. 157 is important. It is about inclusivity.
    I want to thank my good friend, the MP for Tobique—Mactaquac, for giving me the opportunity to speak to this motion, and the importance visitability can have for all Canadians, of all ages and abilities, particularly persons with a physical disability, aging individuals, seniors, and their families in Canada.
    Meegwetch.
    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in solidarity with Canadians who are limited in their mobility due to age or disability. For this reason, I stand in favour of Motion No. 157, which calls upon the members of this House to recognize the importance of constructing homes in a manner that makes them accessible to all. Furthermore, it calls on the Minister of Science and Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities to address the topic of visitability in the government's accessibility legislation, which was promised more than a year ago and has yet to be seen by this place.
    Canada has been a world leader in creating accessible public spaces for those who live with a disability. The previous Conservative government invested heavily through the enabling accessibility plan to retrofit existing public facilities to provide greater access for all Canadians. From small retrofit projects to major community facilities, this program helped build a more accessible Canada for all. It was the right thing to do to make community spaces more inclusive of every single Canadian.
    The concept of visitability, as presented in the motion we are discussing here today, takes accessibility to a new level by essentially calling on the federal government to legislate new building codes with regard to residential construction. For those who are not familiar with the concept of visitability, the term refers to single-family or owner-occupied housing designed in such a way that it can be lived in or visited by people who have trouble with steps or who use wheelchairs or walkers. At a minimum, it means three things: one, an entrance to the house without steps; two, doorways and hallways made 32 inches wide; and three, a main-floor bathroom that is accessible by someone who uses a wheelchair. Unless someone has a disability or knows someone who has a disability, most people would not take these things into consideration.
    While it is crucial for us to pursue measures throughout society that increase accessibility, it is also important for us to remember that changes like these cost builders, and therefore homeowners, additional money. This could potentially place additional financial strain on homeowners who do not require the suggested changes. In particular, I am thinking of the financial implications this could have for young, first-time homebuyers. Furthermore, the building restrictions associated with visitability would take away choice in home design. For example, split-level entries would no longer be an option, which, of course, takes that away from the consumer. It is therefore incumbent upon this House to study the impact of the proposal outlined in Motion No. 157 before implementing it.
     That said, there is a lot to be said about constructing homes with the features required to comfortably accommodate someone with a disability. It is not just about the present; it is also about the future.
    Canada's population is aging. In fact, by 2031, about 23% of Canadians could be seniors, and as a general rule, a person's mobility tends to decrease with age. For the most part, seniors want to stay in their homes. They want to age in place. Constructing homes without stairs to the front door, with wider doorways and hallways, and with a wheelchair-accessible bathroom on the main floor would facilitate a person's ability to stay in his or her home longer. For this reason, it makes sense for contractors and architects to plan for the future when they design homes.
    This motion talks about implementing visitability in federal accessibility legislation. Despite significant national consultations conducted across the country in 2016 and a promise to have legislation before the House by Christmas 2017, we still have not seen any action by the current government. The summary of the consultations was completed in May of 2017, which was more than year ago. Many people are wondering why the government has failed to deliver on its promise.
    The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that solutions to social challenges are merely a matter of political will. On that front, I guess the current government has communicated its political will loud and clear. The government is focused on legalizing marijuana, reducing sentences for violent crimes, destroying good-paying jobs in the oil and gas sector, and making life less affordable by implementing a carbon tax. The Liberals appear to care more about attacking Canadians than about making life more affordable and more accessible to those who live with a disability.
    In fact, the current government is so committed to stripping Canadians of their rightfully earned wages that it recently voted against my colleague's bill regarding opportunities for workers with disabilities. This legislation would have ensured that people with disabilities would always benefit from their work. Right now, that is not the case. When people with disabilities start earning income, they not only pay taxes but also face sharp clawbacks of their income, medication, and housing supports, and other supports, meaning that they can lose more than they gain from getting a job, earning a raise, or working more hours.

  (1130)  

    Linda Chamberlain shared her story with the Toronto Star, which wrote, “After three decades of battling schizophrenia and homelessness and poverty, Chamberlain finally got a job.” As a reward, the government increased the cost of Linda's rent by nearly 500%. They also cut her disability payment, making her $260 per month poorer because she got a job. As a result, she had to quit her job and choose to remain poor.
    This is a huge problem. It is a glitch in our current system, and it is one that could have been addressed by the private member's bill that was brought forward by my colleague from Carleton.
    The problem with the way the system is currently structured is that it not only forces people to live a life of poverty but also demoralizes them. It was incredibly disheartening, then, to watch members of the Liberal Party rise in this place and vote no to this common-sense motion that advocated for the rights of people who live with a disability.
    As Conservatives, we understand that actions speak louder than words. We may not be as great at flashy photo-ops and selfies, but we certainly delivered significant assistance to those who live with a disability. We increased investments in skills training and employment opportunities so that persons living with a disability could be empowered to earn a living. We increased the working income tax benefit, which put more money in the pockets of those living with a disability who were working part-time or at minimum wage jobs. We also created the registered disabilities saving plan, which allows the parents of a person with a disability to save for the future needs of their children. Under the Harper Government, Canada became a much more inclusive place, a place that treated people who live with a disability with greater dignity, respect, and honour.
    While the Liberal's record very clearly shows that the government does not prioritize people living with a disability, I am happy to support the motion before the House in the hope that perhaps the Liberals will turn from their hypocritical tendencies and actually take action.
    Equal opportunity is a key tenet of conservatism. We want to give everyone the opportunity, regardless of circumstance, to build a better life. We support this motion, but beyond words, we want to see action on this file.
    The Liberals like to use words like “compassion” and “inclusion”, but the action for persons with disabilities is not there. It was the same story for the Canadian autism partnership. After years of work from every significant stakeholder in the autism community, the model for the Canadian autism partnership was finally ready to launch. Instead, all the hard work went to waste, as the Liberal government refused to fund it.
    For one-tenth of the cost of this weekend's G7 summit in Quebec, the Liberals could have provided national leadership on research and treatment for autism. However, apparently, the autistic community was asking for more than what the government was able to offer.
    Similarly, Canada's veterans, many of whom live with a disability, have been left in the cold by the government. In fact, at a recent town hall, the Prime Minister stated that injured veterans are asking for more than the government can afford to give. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has enough money to pay a convicted terrorist $10.5 million. Also, he has enough money to increase foreign aid spending by $2 billion, not to mention his tax-funded vacations to the Caribbean and India.
    In conclusion, the motion before the House serves as a statement of intent, but if we have learned one thing over the last two and a half years of the current government, it is that intent does not equal action.
     In support of those living with a disability, we call upon the government to stop talking and start delivering. Perhaps it can start with this motion.

  (1135)  

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the member for Tobique—Mactaquac for his visionary motion. I believe it is the first time visitability has been discussed in this honourable place, and it is an idea whose time has come. As a person who has had a disability for the last 28 years, I can say that visitability would have made a great deal of sense if it had been there 28 years ago. Now that we are discussing it here in this place, I hope that it can lead to more opportunities for people with disabilities and exceptionalities to live even fuller lives in Canada.
    Visitability means three things. The first is that we need to be able to get in the door. That means a no-step entry. There have been countless times when I have wanted to get into someone's home, building, or place of business and there has been a step or some other impediment to being allowed to participate. I know it does not seem like a lot, but with visitability being at the fore, we too would be able to participate more in Canadian society.
     The second thing visitability means is that we need clear passages. They have to be roughly 32 inches across for people to make it down hallways, whether they are using wheelchairs, scooters, or other mobility devices to move around the floor of a building.
     The third thing is an accessible washroom. What good is a place if one has to go back home to go to the washroom?
     Those three simple things would allow a person's home or business to be called “visitable”. I think these are things Canada needs, with one in seven Canadians having a disability. That is roughly 14.4% of our population. That number is only going to rise with our aging population.
    This is an idea that could really have major impacts on people's lives. It would be a cost-effective way of including people with disabilities in the Canadian fabric. Designing new homes this way would be more cost-efficient than retrofitting. When planning a neighbourhood or a business community, this could be incorporated into the mix to allow people to participate and to welcome guests with wheelchairs and mobility devices. It would allow an increase in social inclusion.
    It could help seniors age in place. How many times have we seen people, when they get older, having to look for another place to live, because their current place does not meet their needs?
    An interesting fact for those who want to live to be 75 years old, and I would guess that most of us do, is that 50% of people over the age of 75 will have a physical disability of one kind or another. We can see how visitability, if it was built right into our homes, would not only save costs for people going forward but would allow them to age in place in the community where they have built their lives.
    It could also reduce hospital stays. Twenty-eight years ago, when I had my spinal cord injury, I spent roughly seven months in the hospital. I could probably have left two months earlier, but there was simply no place to go. There was no affordable, accessible, visitable place for me, a Canadian with a disability, to go. There was no room at the inn, so to speak. This is a real need that has to be addressed in our communities. In fact, if we look at the Calgary rental market, only 1% of housing in Calgary is both accessible and affordable. This gap affects almost 90,000 people.

  (1140)  

    We need to move forward on this. I will note that this is much of the reason why we are moving forward on the national housing strategy that will allow for more people with disabilities and exceptionalities to find a place to live. I am very pleased to see that some of these solutions are already being addressed in Calgary, as we saw in the opening this weekend of Inclusio. It is a place for 45 people with disabilities who meet an income threshold and who will now be able to live in their communities with an ability to get the help they need to live a fuller, more broad, more complete life.
    These are important steps forward that are met by having a visitability structure to our way of living. There are communities out there right now that are implementing this strategy. I believe there is a community in Manitoba that has completely designed their housing structures to allow for the visitability structure, to allow for people to come and share the time together in their communities, to make things go forward.
    I know with our national housing strategy, how we implement concepts like visitability is going to be very important going forward. There is no doubt that the one in seven Canadians with a disability right now do not have opportunities to live in the community at the same rate as other people. I know this is one thing I am very proud of this government for moving on: the national housing strategy and how we are going to include people with disabilities and exceptionalities, ensuring that they, too, have an ability to take part.
    It is not only for people with disabilities that this makes sense. There is a whole broad range of other people who would be able to find society more easy to navigate. We can see that with people who want to have a stroller, a young mother or young father moving their children throughout the community, having that going into a home simply makes sense.
    If we look around the community, we can see that visitability is an idea that's time has come. I applaud the member for Tobique—Mactaquac for his visionary work on this front. Hopefully this will be brought into more places and more stations as a way to allow for more people to take part in their community.

  (1145)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 157 and to emphasize how important it is for Canadian society. Even though Canada has always been ahead of the curve in creating an inclusive environment, there is still a lot of work to do. According to Statistics Canada, one in seven Canadians lives with a disability that limits their daily activities. Even so, the evidence shows that there is still a widespread lack of access to urban environments, roads, and housing.
    This continues to prevent Canadians with reduced mobility from participating fully and equally in our society. I believe the member for Tobique—Mactaquac has a vision for Canada and that solutions exist. This motion affirms that vision by calling on the government to act. I share his vision, and I believe it can help change things.
    Adopting the visitability motion will bring about major change in more ways than one. This motion will not only improve physical access, but also, over time, help reduce obstacles to communications and other social and behavioural barriers. The people who would benefit from government actions that honour the spirit of this motion will be recognized in our conversations and our decision-making. Ultimately, that will help remove the socio-economic barriers they face.
    By addressing this issue through accessibility legislation, the minister would demonstrate our government's leadership on this matter, and also raise public awareness while highlighting just how many Canadians are still facing discrimination and disadvantages related to mobility issues. Awareness helps encourage social responsibility and recognizes that all individuals must be supported and given the opportunity to achieve and exercise their autonomy without being impeded by inaccessible places, when we have the capacity and the resources to accommodate them.
    The concept of visitability will improve the quality of life of all Canadians, not just people with a disability, but also seniors, parents pushing strollers, pregnant women, children, and visitors who use mobility devices. Seniors are also very vulnerable to the structural barriers that the concept of visitability is meant to address. It is estimated that approximately 43.4% of Canadians 65 and older suffer from pain, vision loss, or loss of agility, causing them to restrict their activities. More specifically, one-third of Canadians 65 and older face difficulties in their daily activities because of mobility issues. This is a problem we need to acknowledge, because it will eventually affect us all.
    When people start to age, their home can become an uncomfortable environment. When home layouts become increasingly difficult to use and no longer meet the needs and requirements of the residents, the latter can no longer access their homes or use them as well as they once did. With the new physical and sensory changes that happen naturally with age, our homes, which were once comfortable, start to become a barrier. Climbing the stairs can become difficult, hallways that were once easy to navigate do not accommodate wheelchairs or walkers, and the absence of a main floor bathroom can be a challenge.
    These situations make seniors somewhat disabled by exposing them to risks of serious and potentially fatal injuries. All these factors can force us to spend our final years in an institutional setting equipped with ramps, bars, and no-step entryways. It is not enough to have government-run institutions that meet these requirements. We have to structure our society in such a way as to make all places accessible.
    Elder abuse is a growing problem in Canada. The safety of seniors is an issue that family members have to take into consideration when choosing a retirement home or a palliative care home for their loved ones.

  (1150)  

    Ensuring that visitability standards are included in the construction of new homes will allow Canadians of all ages to live and age in their homes.
    I would also like to take this opportunity to shed light on the impact that visitability can have on women. At present, it is estimated that approximately 53% of all people living with a disability in Canada are women, and that the levels of violence and abuse experienced by women with a disability are also the highest of all groups in Canada.
    Inaccessibility means that it is difficult and sometimes impossible for women to attend meetings where information is exchanged and decisions are made. Women with reduced mobility and their families may refuse invitations to places that are difficult to access. Economic insecurity and inaccessibility, which are common among women with a disability, can lead them to live in places where there is no basic accessibility or to remain in precarious situations where they cannot exercise their autonomy because they depend on their partner or family. Single mothers who have children with a severe disability and who cannot afford accessible housing or cannot visit their families run the risk of not getting the help they often need. Visitability is crucial in order to promote full social inclusion of all women.
    In order to empower women and ensure that they are able to participate in society in a fair and equal manner, we need to continue to focus on accessibility. Including these necessary accessibility standards will presumably have a significant impact. It is also important to realize that, as we work to achieve this objective, we will strengthen our commitment to making the changes that vulnerable Canadians desperately need.
    We know that the federal government is working with the provinces and territories and providing funding through various means to make projects that are currently on the table a priority and to help the provinces and territories get the funding they need to launch these projects. That is why the third point set out in Motion No. 157, “inviting the federal government to address the subject of Visitability with its provincial and territorial partners in upcoming Federal, Provincial and Territorial discussions”, is so vital.
    Visitability should be taken into consideration as we move forward with affordable housing projects by focusing on seniors and people with disabilities. All levels of government can work together so that the most vulnerable members of our society are better taken care of and so that they can have the best possible quality of life.
    What is more, funding for accessibility in general is incredibly effective and has helped communities restructure and remodel their facilities to accommodate people who would not otherwise have access to certain locations.
    Accessibility in private spaces is just as important as accessibility in public spaces, and this is something I want to emphasize today. The needs of Canadians who require greater accessibility reflect those of our communities. Accessibility standards and principles of inclusiveness could and should be incorporated into a project's development and funding, as the sponsor of this motion, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, pointed out.
    I strongly support this motion, because I know what kind of impact it can have for people , in particular the most vulnerable Canadians, who simply cannot go certain places because our communities are unable to meet basic mobility needs.
    I want to conclude by congratulating Mr. Perreault, the CEO of StimuleArts, a not-for-profit in my riding of Vimy, who does amazing work with people with physical or intellectual disabilities.

  (1155)  

[English]

    There remaining only five minutes in the time provided for private members' business this morning, we will go directly to the right of reply by the sponsor of the motion before the House.
     The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac has up to five minutes.
    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak for the second time to my motion, Motion No. 157, on visitability. I would like to express a gracious thanks to my colleagues on both sides of the House, all parties in fact, for speaking to and supporting this important motion, including the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, as well as the hon. member for Calgary Centre, to recognize the need for visitability, access for all, and the ability to age in place. This is a non-partisan topic. Supporting it through their kind words in first hour of debate and emphasizing the need for minimum standards of accessibility sends the right message to Canadians.
    The need to work together for the benefit of Canadians of all ages and abilities and the need for increased accessibility nationwide is essential, and I thank them sincerely. Education on visitability is key, and our discussion should not end here.
    I would also like to thank all those individuals and organizations that advocate for visitability and accessibility locally in my riding, in my home province of New Brunswick, and across Canada. Their work is so appreciated and important to us all.
    In addition to calling on the government to support and promote the concept of visitability, the motion invites the government to raise the issue in future provincial and territorial discussions. The National Building Code is the model building code that forms the basis for the provincial building codes. Although visitability practices are not within federal jurisdiction, our government encourages the visitability of residential housing within provincial and territorial jurisdictions. I hope to see it included in the national accessibility legislation the minister wishes to present to Parliament.
    The debate in the House has been successful in fostering meaningful discussion around the introduction of the topic of visitability. I hope to see those discussions brought forward with our provincial and territorial partners in future discussions.
    The motion would also allow for an opportunity to emphasize the efforts of companies, contractors, and builders already applying the principles of visitability in their new constructions. I would like to commend these companies for their efforts and attention to pre-construction planning, as this type of housing is truly necessary if we are to age in place in a barrier-free society.
    We need to ensure we all recognize and communicate to others that visitability is not just for the benefit of persons with a disability but for all Canadians, including seniors, families, persons without a disability, and all of us in this place. Bringing visitability before the House is not just for the benefit of persons with a disability but for everyone, which is in the spirit of inclusivity.
     I congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora, for his dedication to accessibility through his statement last week on the importance of access for all, a true demonstration there is a trending and long overdue need for us to address our accessibility challenges nationwide. Most of all, including visitability practices in construction can no longer come as an afterthought.
     Someone who has continued to emphasize this point is Canadian Paralympian, activist, philanthropist for persons with a disability, and someone we all know as the “Man in motion”, Mr. Rick Hansen. He is a tireless advocate for accessibility in our country, one I am proud to say has supported the motion by stating:
    Physical accessibility is a fundamental barrier for people with disabilities. Something as simple as the expectation to stay in your home as long as you want to is just one example. This is why I support Motion M-157 in helping ensure that homes are accessible and inclusive, providing greater independence and quality of life for all Canadians.
    This issue is particularly important to me, and the reality is that disability is likely to affect every one of us directly or indirectly throughout our lifetime. One in seven Canadians over the age of 15 has a disability, that is 3.8 million Canadians, and this will increase with an ever-aging population.
    Our government has made a commitment to putting accessibility legislation forward. This motion has created an opportunity for visitability to become the cornerstone of the legislation. I very much look forward to seeing the impact visitability will have as we continue to build on the hard work that has already been done to date for the benefit of all Canadians and as we anticipate the tabling of legislation in the House this session.
     This presents an opportunity for all of us in this place to do what is right and non-partisan. I hope for unanimous support on Motion No. 157 for the benefit of all Canadians.
    I would like to conclude my remarks with a point made by an individual who originally brought the topic of visitability to the attention of the provincial non-profit, of which he is a board member, Ability New Brunswick. Mr. Courtney Keenan is a constituent from my riding, a friend, and a passionate advocate for accessibility.

  (1200)  

    Drawing from the disability statistics, which have been stated many times through these two hours of debate, given that 16.5% of the Canadian population has a disability and using the theory we all know as “six degrees of separation”, the idea that all living things in this world are six or fewer steps away from each other, calculations would show that nearly 100% of the population is directly or indirectly impacted by disability and the need for accessibility.
    The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    Some hon. members: No.
    The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
    Some hon. members: Yea.
    The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
    Some hon. members: Nay.
    The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
    And five or more members having risen:

[Translation]

    The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 13, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Business of Supply]

  (1205)  

[English]

Business of Supply

Opposition Motion—Iran 

    That the House: (a) strongly condemn the current regime in Iran for its ongoing sponsorship of terrorism around the world, including instigating violent attacks on the Gaza border; (b) condemn the recent statements made by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for genocide against the Jewish people; (c) call on the government to (i) abandon its current plan and immediately cease any and all negotiations or discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran to restore diplomatic relations, (ii) demand that the Iranian Regime immediately release all Canadians and Canadian permanent residents who are currently detained in Iran, including Maryam Mombeini, the widow of Professor Kavous Sayed-Emami, and Saeed Malekpour, who has been imprisoned since 2008, (iii) immediately designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a listed terrorist entity under the Criminal Code of Canada; and (d) stand with the people of Iran and recognize that they, like all people, have a fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other forms of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.
    He said: Mr. Speaker, is Canada an indispensable country? Is our voice and influence necessary on the world stage? I believe it is, but in order for Canada's influence to matter, we must stand for something.
    Our foreign affairs minister gave a speech about a year ago in which she asserted that Canada was an indispensable country, and yet she has failed to deliver a foreign policy that involves us standing for anything clearly or consistently.
    In my motivating remarks for this motion, I am going to start by articulating the principles that we believe should animate Canadian foreign policy and then talk about the situation on the ground in Iran and the wider Middle East. It calls for the particular substantive Canadian response that we are proposing.
    At a fundamental level, our party contends that Canada must have a principled foreign policy; that it is a foreign policy that stands for something. What does that mean?
    Canada is a special place. We were founded as a free, bicultural society with religious freedom and diversities and with common laws and values. We chose to reconcile our diversity in the unity of one democratic political community from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth.
    Out of that founding vision has grown the greatest nation on earth. We are free, prosperous, bold, creative, and kind. Our political culture is characterized by freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We are diverse but we are great, not just because of our diversity but because of how we live together in the midst of that diversity, how we live out the maximum of St. Augustine, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
    That is Canada, an uncommon example of diverse people living together well. We are the exception that proves the rule, evidence that something outside the experience of many people around the world is in fact possible. This is who we are and this is what we seek to preserve here in Canada.
    As we develop our foreign policy, we have two paths available to us. We can choose to stand as we are, true to ourselves and our own experience and seek to expand the space for freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law around the world. Or we can demure, speaking of our values as Canadian values but failing to assert that they are also universal human values, perhaps, and highlighting our own failures in the world in a way that gives comfort to human rights abusers elsewhere.
    A principled foreign policy is one that seeks to apply our own domestic experience to make the world around us a better place. An unprincipled foreign policy would put a claim in the councils of the world and the approval of other nations ahead of our principles, preferring the appointment of envoys and the taking of photos to actual action on important files.
    A principled foreign policy recognizes that the peoples of the world are no less deserving of freedom, democracy, human rights protections, and the rule of law than Canadians. Again, a principled foreign policy seeks to expand the space for these ideas. A serious, principled, strategic Canadian foreign policy that involves doing the right thing even when people are not looking can make a big difference.
    Canada is part of most major non-regional international clubs, the G7, the G20, the Commonwealth, the Francophonie, etc. We do not have the natural challenges of being a super power. We do not have the baggage of colonial history beyond our borders. We have a domestic experience of reconciling diversity in a well-functioning federation. We can use our access and our experience to effectively seek the spread of our values around the world.
    This is our opportunity, but we also face challenges. Fully projecting our influence requires us to do two things that do not normally come natural to us nationally. It requires us to be proud and it also requires us to be impolite.
    It is fashionable among some Liberals today decry the rise of nationalism, without even qualifying or defining that term. Nationalism obviously has many negative manifestations, but nationalism properly oriented is the love of one's country and its natural virtues, a love of one's country that is not incompatible with love and goodwill to all, but a love that is grounded in and starts with one's most immediate community. In order to spread our experience around the world, we must first be proud of that experience and unafraid to speak about our greatness. We should be unapologetic about saying and showing the greatness of our political model. That is the basis on which we will spread it.
    To be principled is also to be willing to be impolite when the situation calls for it. Are we the sort of country that wants to get along with everyone, or are we willing to risk our relationships, in the case of very bad actors, or risk not having relationships at all, in order to stand up for what is important? I think those suffering persecution around the world who want to see their own country become more like Canada would want us to be as effective as possible and as impolite as necessary in seeking to support and advance their legitimate aspirations.

  (1210)  

    Canada cannot be both a friend to the oppressor and a friend to the oppressed. We must choose. A timid foreign policy, lacking in sufficient pride and aggressiveness would be a friend to the oppressor. However, a Canada that understands the genesis of our own success, that is proud of what it is, that is bold, blunt, and even impolite when confronting abusers of human rights, would be a friend to those who need it. Surely, this should not be mistaken for a call to isolationism. It is fundamentally the opposite. It is a call to authentically carry ourselves into the councils of the world.
    I moved a motion today specifically about Canada's foreign policy towards Iran. This motion calls for a a clear condemnation of the Iranian regime's aggression throughout the Middle East, including the sponsorship of terrorism, and specifically its support for Hamas during recent violent clashes on the Israel border. It calls for a clear condemnation of the Iranian regime's advocacy for a second Holocaust; that is, for the complete destruction of the world's only Jewish state. It calls for a response from the Canadian government to the actions of Iran, the total abandonment of its plan to negotiate the restoration of diplomatic relations with Iran, for aggressive and consistent advocacy for Canadians imprisoned in Iran, and for the designation of the so-called Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. Finally, this motion calls for a recognition of the fundamental human rights of the Iranian people.
    Some context here is important. The Iranian state is recognized by most nations in the Middle East as a clear and present threat to the security of the region. At a fundamental level, the Iranian regime does not operate like a normal state, accepting the strictures of sovereignty and diplomatic action in this age. It is rather a post-revolutionary state, seeking to spread its theocratic revolutionary doctrine and system through any and all means possible.
    While Canada ought to seek the spread of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law through a rules-based order that recognizes the inherent dignity of all human beings, Iran seeks to spread its particular brand of authoritarian theocracy through underhanded support to violent proxies. It seeks to wage war through its proxies against anyone in the way of its quest for complete dominance in the region, especially against Israel and Saudi Arabia.
    This present conflict should not be misconstrued as a clash of civilizations or religions. In fact, countries in the region, other Muslim nations, generally see and experience a threat posed by Iran more clearly than do nations in the west. In the region, Iran is using proxies to infiltrate Iraq; it is supporting the Assad regime in Syria, and it is continuing to back Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. It is co-opting and using Houthis in Yemen to destabilize the country and attack Saudi Arabia, and it is supporting violent action by Gaza on Israel's border.
    We, and other regional powers, are in something like a new cold war against Iran. The term “cold war” does not seem quite right in light of how hot it actually is. However, the current situation is analogous to the Cold War that we fought against the Soviets, insofar as Iran, a radical post-revolutionary state, is seeking to spread its revolution by backing violent proxies, and in some cases sending direct military aid. It is trying to spread its brand of revolutionary theocracy, and to encircle and undermine the security of those who it defines as its foes.
    Of particular concern to Israelis, but also to Syrians, Iranians, Kurds, and other Middle Eastern people, is the attempt by Iran to open up and operationalize a northern corridor from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, covering Israel's northern border and stretching to the Mediterranean Sea. This corridor would give Iran the means to ferry weapons and equipment more easily back and forth between its proxies, sending more sophisticated weaponry to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and opening a second front against Israel from Syria.
     Israel has highly sophisticated iron dome and anti-rocket technology. However, that does not eliminate the substantial risk presented by the proliferation of weapons in an Iran-controlled transportation corridor. The previous American administration had sought to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions in exchange for sanctions relief. This strategy represented a laudable goal, but it did not engage sufficiently with the non-nuclear ways that Iran represents a threat to regional security, and the way that sanctions relief has enabled the regime to invest further in support of its terrorist proxies.
    While Israel is a particular target of these northern corridor efforts, we must also recognize how harmful they are to the particular countries in the path of this Iranian regime's aggressive attack corridor. The people of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon have suffered enough already, yet their states and their rights are in different ways undermined by Iranian aggression. The Iranian regime, aided by sanctions relief, is developing greater capacity to undermine regional security through terrorism. It is not just developing capacity, it is repeatedly demonstrating a willingness to use that capacity.
    A principled Canadian foreign policy would seek to join with our allies to counter Iranian aggression by doing all we can to prevent the regime from accessing the resources it needs to complete its strategic design, undermining other countries' sovereignty, and using them to attack our partners. The spread of Iranian regime-backed terrorism and instability throughout the region requires the clear and steadfast opposition of all free nations whose foreign policy is informed by principle.

  (1215)  

    I would like to turn now specifically to the situation in Gaza, and the role that Iran is playing. I recently had the opportunity to join members of the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary friendship group on a trip to the West Bank to observe the situation and engage in dialogue with the Palestinian leadership, civil society, and people. Palestinians are a warm and hospitable people. They deserve the same things that all of us do. I do not always agree with our hosts in the West Bank, but they profess a commitment to recognizing Israel's right to exist, and the pursuit of a peaceful two-state solution, including hard compromises on both sides. Conservatives in Canada seek the establishment of a free, democratic, rights-respecting, pluralistic, rule of law-based Palestinian state, living in peace with, and enjoying close co-operation with the Jewish state of Israel.
    The situation in the West Bank under the Palestinian authority stands in marked contrast to the situation in Gaza. Gaza is fully controlled by Hamas, a terrorist entity which countenances no negotiation or peace with Israel. Some people have called Gaza an open-air prison. If that is the case, then Hamas is the jailer. Hamas's charter says the following, “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” Then later, “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.” That is from the Hamas charter.
    Lest there be any doubt of what they mean by the word “Jihad” in this context, the charter says later:
    The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.
    No wonder there is such kinship between Hamas and the Iranian regime. Iran and Hamas are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, in effect to the bringing about of a second holocaust. The Hamas charter contains similar language to the recent tweet of Iran's supreme leader, who said, “Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.” This statement should clearly be understood as incitement to genocide. Insofar as the tweet specifically references the so-called “Great Return March”, we should understand that this march on Israel's border is part of the mechanism that Hamas and Iran see for effecting the second holocaust that they desire.
    The Palestinian people are the first victims of Hamas, and of the Iranian regime in this case, because they regard the Palestinian people as mere chess pieces in their cynical game against Israel. Hamas has used a series of tactics for targeting Israel, trying to inflict maximum suffering on Israelis, but with no concern for the associated cost to Palestinian people. The costs of this ongoing violence have included lost aid, collateral damage, and direct repression.
    Hamas launches rockets into Israel, although these rockets can often be effectively countered with Israel's iron dome technology. Hamas uses aid and building materials to try to construct tunnels into Israel through which to launch attacks. Hamas has repurposed kites given as aid, intended to bring some joy to the children of Gaza, but that are repurposed into tools for setting fire to forests and fields in Israel. Hamas has organized marches on the border, combining civilians and militants, as they always do, but specifically with the intention of infiltrating and violently attacking Israel. The name of the event , “Great Return March”, should make rather obvious that the intention is not to protest at the border, but rather to violently cross it.
    When it comes to issues involving international peace and security, as well as advancing Canada's vital trade interests, Canada's Conservatives seek co-operation with the government whenever and wherever possible. However, we will not deign to criticize substantial wrongs by the government, which are at odds with our values and interests. The government's response to the so-called Great Return March has focused solely on criticizing Israel's response to it. We desire for multi-party unity and support for Israel's right to exist and defend itself, but Israel becomes an issue of partisan disagreement when this government makes statements that single Israel out and fail to identify the real instigators of violence in the region. We will not, in the name of so-called non-partisanship, demure to criticize the government when it fails to properly support our close allies.
    Aside from the supreme leader's tweet, the Iranian role in these events should be eminently clear. The Palestinian ambassador to France has specifically identified the role of Iran in fomenting and supporting these protests in Gaza.

  (1220)  

    Iran and Hamas seek a second holocaust. My grandmother was a survivor of the first Holocaust, and she instilled in us the necessary sensibility towards those who threaten violence against the Jewish people. It is a sensibility rooted in that historic memory. When people say they are trying to kill us, believe that they mean it and stop them before it is too late. Never expect critics around the world to have the same commitment to our security that we do. Israel will not wait until it is too late to respond to Iran, and neither should we.
    Our motion calls on the government not to seek resumption of diplomatic relations with Iran, and further to list the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity. I would like to turn now in particular to the importance of those measures.
    The question of diplomatic ties with Iran is an important one, but one which is often misconstrued in terms of its actual impact. In cases where Canada does not have a diplomatic presence, we work to advance our interests and support Canadians in other ways. Everyone understands that there are workarounds and back channels that exist as part of international diplomacy.
    Diplomatic relations are not merely a question about whether or not we have an ability to talk to each other. It is also a question of the status of our relationship and the degree to which we believe that mutual access to each other should be automatic. Should Iranian agents have the freedom to come to Canada easily and inevitably to work clandestinely to intimidate members of their own community and share intelligence back home? Should Iranian authorities be able to threaten Canadian diplomatic staff and property in Iran, as we have seen happen in other cases with nations that have disputes with Iran? Should we reward Iran's threats of genocide and instigation of violence in the region with an upgrading of relations?
    It would have to be out of either willful blindness or in clear spite of our values and interests for us to pursue the reopening of diplomatic relations with Iran at a time like this. Pressing the reset button arbitrarily in the midst of worsening regime behaviour sends a perverse message about our intensity and our resolve to advance the things that we consider important. Rewarding bad behaviour is appeasement. It has never worked, and it will never work. Organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah which enjoy Iranian support and share its designs are rightly listed as terrorist organizations.
    The government trumpets the importance of dialogue with extreme bad actors like the Iranian state, and yet accepts, in the listing of Hamas and Hezbollah, the principle that there are some people we should not be talking to, whose actions put them beyond the pale of even the legitimacy that comes with discussion, and that we are safer drawing a clear line in the sand. Insofar as we take this approach with Hamas and Hezbollah, it follows naturally and reasonably that we take the same approach with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC is almost certainly responsible, at a practical level, for more violence and mayhem than these organizations, and it shares values, objectives, and tactics with them.
    What makes it different, of course, is an apparent link with a state, but it functions with a level of autonomy and independence that could well justify its recognition as a non-state actor. In any event, there is nothing in Canadian law to prevent the listing of state entities as terrorist entities, if in fact they are. It would be perverse to contend that we should sanction non-state entities involved in terrorism while seeking greater diplomatic ties with state entities that do the same thing.
    Our motion concludes with an affirmation of the fundamental human rights of the Iranian people.
    In the midst of efforts by the Iranian government to spread violence and terror throughout the region, the Iranian people have stood up and said no. A powerful protest movement broke out this past December and January, with protestors demanding political change and the emergence of a government that protects their rights and is on their side. Slogans included "Not Gaza, Not Lebanon, I give my life for Iran", and also "Death to the dictator". In other words, protestors were specifically and knowingly repudiating the grand design of their regime, and even calling for an end to the regime itself. In the midst of significant violence and repression, these protesters were a portrait of courage.
    Some in the west will often cover Iranian politics as some legitimate contest between regime moderates and regime hard-liners, but the more important cleavage is between the supreme leader who holds all of the political power, and the people who seek more than simply the moderation of their environment, the gilding of their cage. They seek fundamental change.
    In the midst of this, a Liberal MP referred to the Iranian government as "elected". I know many people in the community and the democracy movement found that offensive.
    Political change in Iran is the most important and reachable strategic objective for us in the region. It would, in a moment, dramatically reduce the security threats posed to Israel and our other allies. It would open up a space for opportunity and prosperity. By weakening Hamas and Hezbollah, it would be a particular blessing to the people of Palestine and Lebanon. It would significantly increase the prospects of peace between Israel and Palestine, between Israel and Lebanon, in Syria, and in Yemen.
    Most importantly, it would mark the extension of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law to over 80 million people who do not presently enjoy it.

  (1225)  

    We, here in this House, today, have the power to do something about this, to constrain and isolate the Iranian regime, to support the Iranian people, and to work towards the perhaps imminent objective of a free Iran. In this struggle, our experience matters; our voice is indispensable.
    Mr. Speaker, the member's motion touches on many different segments of the issue. Particularly, I would like to touch on two aspects.
    First, I want to join in saying that we, the New Democrats, unequivocally condemn the comments by the Iranian cleric, as well as the comments by the supreme leader regarding the destruction of Israel and including, most recently, when he said that “Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor....that has to be removed and eradicated”.
    These comments are of course unacceptable and incite violence against an entire population. It is not a path that I think anybody in this House of Commons wants to see anywhere.
    With that said, on the issue around establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, the Conservatives are arguing that Canada should not reward Iran with diplomatic re-engagement. The previous Conservative government did many arms trade deals with human rights abusing countries, like Saudi Arabia. Why is member's perspective that he is willing to engage with one human rights abuser but does not advocate for Canada trying to have a conversation with another?
    Without diplomatic relations, there are challenges. On February 13 at the foreign affairs committee, Amnesty International, Alex Neve said:
    We do note that if diplomatic channels are open, it offers an avenue for advocacy, diplomacy, and more regular consular access, including in-person consular access from Canada rather than from a partner country. These options won't be there if the channels are closed.
    Does the member not agree that we should actually engage in a conversation, even though we do not agree with Iran's perspectives?
    Mr. Speaker, that is a legitimate and a good question. It is an important question to have some dialogue about.
    I want to be clear that there are many countries whose human rights record I have criticized in this House. I have criticized China's human rights record; I have criticized Saudi Arabia's human rights record. I have not advocated breaking off diplomatic relations with those countries. There is a case for wisdom and strategy in terms of how we approach specific cases in order to maximize our effectiveness.
    Iran is a special case for a number of reasons. One of them is that Iran does not play by the normal rules of diplomatic respect. There are multiple cases in which foreign embassies have been attacked inside Iran in response to criticism that has come from other countries over their record. How we do have a dialogue with Iran if it is the kind of country where there is a real threat to the safety of our diplomatic staff every time we speak out? That is not a reality in many other countries, but that is a situation we have seen in Iran, the repeated attacking of diplomatic properties and personnel.
    The Conservative government broke off diplomatic relations with Iran at a time when there was a clear concern about security. We realized that we could not in fact guarantee the security of staff. In addition to all of these other issues, now would be the wrong time to reward Iran with the re-establishment of those relations especially in light of that.
    I will just wrap up my response with this. Of course there are cases where we have somebody in Iran we want to get out, and the Iranian government has been unhelpful. However, we had the same problems previously. We had the case that has just happened, Professor Kavous Seyed-Emami, who was killed in an Iranian prison. We had the case of Zahra Kazemi at a time when Canada did have diplomatic relations with Iran.
    The way in which Iran uses diplomatic relations to threaten Canadians and their embassy as a clandestine mechanism for exerting power outside of normal channels makes Iran a special case, and certainly, in any event, having had diplomatic relations broken off, now is not the time to reward Iran with that re-establishment.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative I am very proud of the history of the Harper government for standing for democracy, justice, and prosperity in free markets around the world. I believe this was beyond the former prime minister. It was something that extended to my predecessor, Jason Kenney. He fought very hard for these rights, as did the hon. John Baird. We had a fantastic powerhouse team that was committed to international democracy, human rights, and justice. Therefore, perhaps my colleague could give his thoughts on what we can learn in terms of promoting democracy, justice, free markets, and prosperity around the world from the previous Harper Conservative government.
    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for her service to Canada in the diplomatic world before now serving in the House.
    I have spoken about the Middle East, so perhaps I will take another example outside of the Middle East to illuminate the point my colleague is making about the way the previous government approached these issues. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Canada, as a member of the G7, had an opportunity to try to drive the world consensus toward a strong response to that invasion. We were uniquely placed to do that. We have the close cultural connection with Ukraine because of our large diaspora community, but also we do not have the same economic ties with Russia that some of our European partners have. We do not have, in a sense, the same superpower plot line tension that exists between the U.S. and Russia. It meant we were well positioned to take a leadership role in speaking out against that invasion. We were able to say things that some of our international partners were less willing to say, but in the process we were able to build a consensus within the G7 for tougher sanctions than would have existed otherwise.
    Some people were asking at the time why it really mattered that Canada speak out and how was it actually making a difference that Stephen Harper was making these strong statements on the issue of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He was able to influence the conversation and the thinking in other countries through our membership in international organizations in a way that established this multilateral response.
    Sometimes, we see on the other side of the House an emphasis on a principles-based approach as somehow characterized as isolationist, as saying we should not be out there engaging with people. We believe, on this side of the House, in the importance of being out there, but out there as Canada, out there in a way that is reflective of our values, of our own domestic experience of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, and of a recognition that that is not just a Canadian value, but a universal human value that we can spread.
    In the case of Ukraine, in the case of our support for Israel, and support for other oppressed minorities around the world and the actions we are taking through institutions like the office of religious freedom and others to build capacity and encourage minority rights, some of this is the loud vocal stuff, like what happened with Ukraine. However, some of it is the small investments we make in, for instance, educational materials that encourage pluralism. They are reflective of our own experience here in Canada. We seek to partner with others to spread those values around the world. Those are the kinds of things we can and should be doing, not seeking the approval of others at any cost, but rather, seeking to be Canada and advance our voice on the world stage.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to say very clearly, the NDP supports diplomatic engagement, based on the principle that dialogue is the best path forward to peace and positive change. The decision to cut diplomatic ties with Iran shows perhaps a profound misunderstanding of what diplomacy is. Diplomacy is about advancing national interests and values and using dialogue to build better understanding and progressive change. It is not really about shunning others. Therefore, I would ask the member: If we do not engage in diplomatic channels, what other options do we have?

  (1235)  

    Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that even the NDP does not actually take the principle that the member just articulated all the way. I think all parties in the House support the listing of certain entities and organizations, for instance terrorist entities with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. I do not think anyone in the House proposed the opening of an embassy to Daesh during their heyday. To recognize that there is some extreme point beyond which we would not be talking or engaging, because to do so would give legitimacy, now leaves us at a point of just evaluating where exactly that line is. I think we would all agree that there is a line somewhere. We have to have some engagement with people we do not agree with, but we also have to recognize a point at which entities are beyond the pale. In the case of Iran, there is a threat to the security of our own diplomatic staff. Of course there are opportunities to talk through back channels when we need to, but diplomatic relations is not just about talking—
    Order. We are out of time. We had slightly over a minute for that last exchange, so we are out of time.
    I realize members pivot and direct their speech to different parts of the chamber, but from time to time, maybe they could check back here so that we're able to give some of those signals as to where the time is at that part of the period allowed for their comments.
    The hon. Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. Speaker, our government is deeply committed to providing help to Canadians in distress abroad. As parliamentary secretary for consular affairs, I have spent the last two and half years focused on ensuring that Canadians abroad get the help they need from their government.
    When Canadians are abroad, they want to know that they have a government at home that will provide them with the help they deserve, and a government that will fight for them; not a government that will be equivocal, not a government that will be selective, and not a government that will be partisan about standing up for their rights.
    I am pleased to say that we are able to provide that help to many Canadians who find themselves in difficult situations in foreign countries every year.
    Our government places the highest value on providing consular services to Canadians. We place a vital priority on helping Canadians in distress. No Canadian should be abandoned by their government, a point that I know the members opposite do not always agree with, and did not in fact act upon while they were in government.
    Led by our Prime Minister and our Minister of Foreign Affairs, we have been very clear around the world throughout our bilateral meetings and multilateral meetings that consular issues are the highest priorities to our government.
    In fact, I know that many world leaders are often surprised when our Prime Minister personally takes the time to raise consular matters during bilateral meetings. Foreign leaders are not accustomed to seeing a world leader dedicate time within a bilateral meeting, when there is a short time for a face-to-face encounter, to raise consular affairs. I am proud that our Prime Minister has taken leadership on this file.
    I am sure I join with all of the members of the House when I express how deeply shocked and appalled I was when the world learned of the death of Canadian Iranian Dr. Kavous Seyed-Emami. Dr. Seyed-Emami was sociology professor, a dedicated environmentalist, and the founder of the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation.
    The circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention have raised many important questions, which remain woefully unanswered. He was arrested by Iranian authorities and taken to the notorious Evin prison. His family found out two weeks later that Dr. Seyed-Emami died, and they were given the explanation of suicide.
    We immediately called upon the Iranian authorities to answer those questions, and we continue to do so today. We need an independent investigation to examine the circumstances and the situation surrounding his death. We must have the truth in this case. There are too many questions left unanswered, and his family is still desperate for answers.
    We immediately demanded details surrounding his detention and his tragic death. We are also shocked and appalled that Dr. Kavous Seyed-Emami's widow, Ms. Maryam Mombeini, continues to be denied the freedom to leave Iran. Ms. Mombeini is a Canadian citizen, and she wishes to return home to Canada. There is no reason why she should not be allowed to do so, and we call upon the Iranian authorities to grant her the freedom to return home immediately.
    I have spoken with her sons on many occasions. Her sons have been able to return to Canada. In fact, I received them at the airport in Vancouver when they came back. I am grateful that they are back home and that they are safe, yet I can also understand what they are going through. They have lost their father, and they are unable to be joined by their mother, who has been barred from leaving Iran.
    The decision by the Iranian authorities not to let her leave is unacceptable, and we have been taking every possible measure to address this terrible situation. In fact, we have said repeatedly, both in public and in private, that as long as Ms. Mombeini is not able to leave Iran, the focus of any discussions with Iran will be on getting her home to Canada. That has been the focus of every interaction that the Government of Canada has had with the Iranian authorities, and I can say to the members opposite that this continues to be the firm case today.

  (1240)  

    The Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken on several occasions with Ms. Mombeini, as well as her sons in Canada, to reassure them of our strong commitment to resolve this unacceptable situation. I have spoken with the sons as well and I have reassured them that the government stands by them unequivocally.
    The Minister of Foreign Affairs has raised this issue directly with Iranian authorities. Just two weeks ago, she spoke with the Iranian foreign minister and delivered that exact message, that any interaction with the Iranian authorities today will solely focus on making sure that Ms. Mombeini is able to return home. She has also raised that issue directly with the Iranian permanent representative to the United Nations.
    Let me say this. I strongly doubt that any foreign minister of a previous government would have been able to fight for a Canadian citizen as we have been able to do. We understand the commitment we have made to the citizens of Canada. It is a promise to provide the help and assistance that we are able to do. At every opportunity, we raise consular issues with other countries, including with Iran.
    It is appalling to us that Saeed Malekpour remains in prison in Iran. In fact, just under a week ago, Mr. Malekpour marked the 10th birthday that he has spent in an Iranian prison. We advocate for his case at every opportunity. Our government is in frequent contact with Mr. Malekpour's family, and I have spoken with his sister, Maryam, whose bravery and determination I truly commend.
     Our government's commitment to Canadians oversees is paramount. The case of Dr. Homa Hoodfar, who in 2016 was released from a Tehran prison after 112 days of detention, illustrates this. Our Government of Canada was actively engaged at the highest levels in Dr. Hoodfar's case, working for her release. The decision of the Conservative government to shutter our embassy in Iran, of course, made providing this help and advocating for Dr. Hoodfar's release even more significant a challenge. In the absence of diplomatic representation of its own in Iran, Canada worked closely with other countries, notably Oman, Italy, and Switzerland, in helping secure Dr. Hoodfar's release. We were extremely relieved and pleased to be able to welcome Dr. Hoodfar back to Canada.
    I would also like to take a moment to thank the many people who worked so hard on this case, including of course, our own Canadian diplomats.
    It is clear that the lack of respect for human rights in Iran is a serious concern for our government, and for all Canadians. The promotion and protection of human rights are at the core of our foreign policy, and we raise these issues globally, both bilaterally and in international forums. That is why Canada leads the annual United Nations General Assembly resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran. This was begun in 2003, and we welcomed the adoption of the Canadian-led resolution by the General Assembly again last year in 2017.
    Our concerns with Iran include the highest number of executions, particularly of juveniles, widespread discrimination against women and girls, restrictions on freedom of expression, and serious and systematic discrimination and harassment of ethnic and religious minorities. The UN resolution sends a strong message to Iranians that the international community remains concerned about persistent human rights violations in Iran. Our government also meets with human rights groups on the human rights situation in Iran regularly. This includes organizations such as Amnesty International, as well as Iranian minorities such as the Baha'i community.

  (1245)  

    I have met on several occasions with groups of Iranian-Canadians to discuss human rights issues, including the cases of individuals detained in Iran. This includes the Mohammad Ali Taheri human rights campaign. We are concerned by the case of Mr. Mohammad Taheri, who has been in prison in Iran for a few years.
    I commend those who continue to advocate for human rights. We must never be afraid to fight and stand up for human rights. At the very core of our government's foreign policy is the protection and promotion of human rights. It is a fundamental belief of our government and a reflection of Canadian values that human rights and democratic rights should not be denied to any person, and that no government should seek to do so. We are not afraid to speak up when these rights are denied.
     At the end of December last year and at the beginning of January, the Iranian people exercised their right to protest. These protests were widespread, taking place in some 80 cities throughout Iran. They attracted a broad cross-section of society, and protestors expressed their discontent on a number of issues. These protests were the demonstration of genuine frustration and real grievances. On December 30, our government was one of the first around the world to speak out publicly in support of the Iranian people. As we said then, we were encouraged by the Iranian people who were exercising their basic right to protest peacefully. We also called on the Iranian authorities to uphold and respect democratic and human rights.
    However, the Iranian security services arrested approximately 3,700 protestors. At least 25 were killed. In addition to this tragic outcome, security services also attempted to suppress the protests by blocking access to social media. On January 3, the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued another statement on the protests, expressing how deeply troubled Canada was by the deaths and detention of protestors in Iran. We reiterated that the Iranian people have the right to freely assemble and express themselves without facing violence or imprisonment, and called on the Iranian authorities to uphold and respect democratic and human rights, which are too often ignored.
     We also remain deeply concerned by Iran's support of terrorism. That is why Canada has listed Iran as a supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. Also, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force is listed as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code, and the IRGC is listed under the Special Economic Measures Act. This means that all persons in Canada are prohibited from engaging in certain activities with the IRGC and the IRGC Quds Force, such as dealing with its properties or entering into a financial transaction. These are strong and meaningful sanctions on Iran, reflective of its actions, internal and external, and they will continue to remain in place.
    Let me also be clear on a further point. We also absolutely and without equivocation condemn Iran's actions against Israel. We condemn the recent abhorrent statement by the supreme leader Khamenei that clearly incited hate and violence. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said then, we are appalled by it. We strongly condemn its incitement to violence as we condemn all of Iran's threats against Israel. Canadians want us to stand up for Iranian citizens who are tired of corruption, incompetency, and military adventurism that directs precious resources to questionable endeavours and creates international instability rather than policies that could improve people's lives. These Iranian citizens are driven to the streets to protest, only to be met by violence from their own government.
    Canadians expect us to have the promotion and protection of human rights at the core of our foreign policy. They also expect us to raise the consular cases of Canadians abroad. We understand that, and that is why our government is so committed to doing it. Let me repeat our firm position on the decision by Iranian authorities to deny Ms. Mombeini the ability to leave Iran. Until that decision is reversed, and until Ms. Mombeini has the freedom to return home to Canada, the focus of any discussion with Iran will be on securing that freedom. We will continue to call on the Iranian authorities to give answers to the detention and death of Kavous Seyed-Emami. We also call on the Iranian authorities to release Saeed Malekpour.

  (1250)  

    What our government values above all are the lives and well-being of Canadian citizens. That has always been and will always be our absolute focus.
    In closing, let me add one more thought. Canadians are not deceived by the Conservatives' rhetoric. The Conservatives were in power for 10 years and Canadians saw they were not able to make any progress. On our core values, we agree with all the messages and virtue signalling they keep promoting today. However, we disagree with them on the fact that Canada needs to be impolite. The hon. member just said that we need to be impolite to achieve those goals.
    As the Prime Minister said last weekend, Canadians are polite and reasonable people, but Canadians will not be pushed around. Canada will not be pushed around. Canada will stand up for Canadian citizens abroad and for human rights everywhere, and we will find the best way to achieve those objectives.
    I want to close by saying that I find it regrettable that the hon. members on the opposite side are using consular cases for partisan purposes when Canadians' lives are at stake. I accept the fact that they have the right and, in fact, I welcome their tough questions on the government's approach to dealing with these cases, but to politicize consular cases for partisan reasons is unbecoming of the official opposition.
    Canadians are not deceived by this because they have not forgotten the 10 years under the Harper government when the Conservatives were not able to accomplish anything. In fact, they remember cases of Canadian citizens abroad who were abandoned, ignored, and neglected.
    I welcome the voices of opposition members on this debate, but I call upon them to be prudent, to be wise, and to be careful when using consular cases for partisan purposes.
    Mr. Speaker, it is quite striking how in literally the same sentence he attacks the previous government for our alleged record on consular cases and then also says that consular issues should be above partisan attacks. The member surely cannot have it both ways.
    As well, he did misquote me, by the way. I appreciate that he was listening but I suggest he listen to my remarks more carefully. It might provide more opportunities for a deeper understanding of the Conservative world view. In particular, what I said was not that we ought to be impolite, rather it was that we should be “willing to be impolite” in defence of our values. A willingness to be impolite is something that is completely different, and obviously the member knows that.
    This member and I have had many discussions, back and forth, about the government's approach to Iran, and I have challenged him on various aspects of it. However, I want to ask him a factual question. What is the government doing with respect to diplomatic relations with Iran? Is it presently pursuing the reopening of diplomatic relations? If it is, then we should know it and be able to discuss it. If it is not, then one wonders why it has such a disagreement with our policy, which was to close the embassy in the first place.

  (1255)  

    Mr. Speaker, let me explain the difference. My colleague wanted to talk about why we are contrasting our record on consular cases at the same time as we are saying to avoid making personal consular cases a partisan matter. The hon. member is making the individual cases of Canadian citizens a partisan issue. If he wants to argue about our record of consular and their record of consular, I am happy to debate it and to make it a partisan issue. However, to personalize individual consular cases for the sake of partisanship is regrettable.
    Let me answer his other question and be very clear. I do not know how much clearer I can be. As well, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been incredibly clear on this. Today, our focus with any interaction with Iran is solely on making sure Ms. Mombeini is able to return back home.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for underscoring the point that denouncing the Iranian regime cannot replace strong diplomacy.
    To that end, I want to ask my colleague about the joint comprehensive plan of action, otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. Canada was very muted in its response when Trump pulled out of that deal. I would like to hear a bit more about why that may have been and about Canada's reaction, maybe expressing disappointment, to the United States.
    I disagree with my colleague, Mr. Speaker. She categorized our response as muted, but our response has been very clear and consistent. We expressed regret that the United States withdrew from that agreement. We have repeatedly said that the agreement has worked. It is imperfect, but it has worked. We will continue to work with our allies, with like-minded people, on making sure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
    We thought the agreement had been working. We called on the U.S. to re-examine its decision. We regret that it withdrew. We will continue to work with our allies to achieve that goal.
    Mr. Speaker, as this is my first moment to take the floor this morning, I want to make it clear that I would have no trouble with this opposition motion if it was restricted to points (a), (b), (c)(ii), c(iii), and (d). As is often the case with opposition motions in this place, something that appears to be something we would all agree with generally has a poison pill in it somewhere so that the party putting it forward can divide the House. I wish we could have motions that unite us.
    We do stand with the people of Iran. We do not condone the actions of the government of Iran. We condemn the human rights violations of the government of Iran. However, I think the parliamentary secretary had it right. We need to extend and rebuild the conversation, because cutting off Iran does not help anyone, and it does not help the people of Iran. The worst thing is what President Trump has just done by pulling out of an agreement that made the world safer.
    I think back to Ambassador Ken Taylor. What would Canada have done if we had not had an embassy in Tehran? We could never have smuggled six Americans out of Iran if we had not been there.

  (1300)  

    Mr. Speaker, my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands has raised an important question. I want to agree with her on this. I feel that Canadians can see through these types of motions.
    The Conservative Party's sole desire is not really to advance substantive, thoughtful policies. It is interested in playing partisan games on issues that are important and serious. While there are important issues to be debated and on which members will disagree, which is legitimate, the objective of this type of motion is only to inflame rhetoric and to exaggerate the fears Canadians have. We in the government and those in other parties have to look at the motion in its entirety and make our decision.
    Let me be very clear. This motion has not been moved to focus on helping consular cases. It is meant to be used just for partisan purposes.
     Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way is against Conservatives and against partisanship. He is apparently against self-awareness, as well.
    It sounded like we had an answer, almost. It sounded like my colleague was saying, in response to my earlier question, that the government is currently not in the process of seeking to reopen diplomatic relations, at least until the situation of Ms. Mombeini is resolved. Could the parliamentary secretary clarify that? Is the government presently seeking to reopen diplomatic relations with Iran? If it is not, then surely it has no reason not to support the motion.
    There is one section of the motion that I understand is problematic for the Green Party and the NDP, but if the government is presently not seeking to reopen diplomatic relations, then it should be willing to support the motion.
     Are we presently in the process of seeking to reopen diplomatic relations with Iran? Yes or no, please.
    Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that the Iranian authorities understand this very clearly. Any current or ongoing interaction with the Iranian authorities will solely focus on making sure that Ms. Mombeini comes back home. I cannot be any clearer for the hon. member. I also want to be very clear for the Iranian authorities. We cannot focus beyond the case of Ms. Mombeini. We want to see her come back home.
    Mr. Speaker, I have a question, but it is for the ambassador of Iran.
     I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for bringing up the Baha'is. In previous administrations in Iran, there was terrible treatment of the Baha'i people. I am sure this government would like to see freedom of religion and open religion in Iran. It would be great to have a comfort letter from the ambassador of Iran to me stating that Iran is open to religious freedom and that the Baha'is can practise their religion peacefully.
    Mr. Speaker, on the issue of minorities in Iran, including the Baha'is, I have frequently met with members of the Baha'i community here in Canada to hear directly from them about the situation in Iran, the treatment the Baha'is receive in Iran, and the lack of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. I have assured them that our government remains committed to defending their rights and defending the rights of the Baha'is in Iran. We will always push the Iranian regime to ensure that all Iranians, including minorities, including the Baha'is, have the ability to practise their faith, to assemble, and to be proud of their background and their faith without suppression or persecution.

  (1305)  

    Mr. Speaker, there is overwhelming agreement among the parties here today, and I can attest to that with confidence because of my work as vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. I am proud of the work we have done on the subject of human rights in Iran. I also appreciate the collegiality that exists among the three parties represented on the subcommittee and how we focus on addressing human rights in Iran. We do this in a non-partisan fashion, because it is a non-partisan issue.
    I am disappointed in today's opposition day motion, because it forsakes a real opportunity to fortify our consensus. Instead of bringing forward a motion on the matter of Iran that could be supported by all parties, and this would have been the simplest and easiest thing to write, my hon. colleagues in the official opposition have decided to play politics instead. If the party opposite truly cared about this issue, it would be reaching out and extending a hand to all the other parties so that a sense of unity of purpose could be established within this chamber, but no, our hyperpartisan colleagues cannot resist the sensation they can wring out of this. Instead of trying to work with everyone, they drafted a motion that they well know contains language the other parties cannot support.
     While New Democrats agree with much of the motion being debated here today, particularly the support it expresses for Iranians and their fundamental human rights, we object to the call to “immediately cease any and all negotiations or discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran to restore diplomatic relations”.
    People in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh have been following the citizenship and immigration issues that come with diplomatic strains, and they are astute to what is going on here.
    In April, CBC reported about the case of one of my constituents, Pooya Mirzabeygi, who had to wait more than 40 months for his permanent residency application to be finalized. He holds a master's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Western Ontario, and he is currently working in research and development in the automotive industry.
    I wanted to express that more pointedly for Canadians. For those out there today watching this debate, those who happen to care about the awful situation of human rights in Iran, please take note. The party opposite knows that we will not accept this language. It added it for the sole purpose of attempting to drive a wedge between us and Canadians. Conservatives care more about manipulating messages and scoring cheap political points against their opponents than they do about addressing the issue of human rights in Iran. This is unfortunate, given how much overwhelming agreement there is among the parties here today on the situation of Iran's human rights abuses and aggression.
    Canadians and New Democrats stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Iran in their aspirations for freedom, peace, democracy, and the rule of just law. We will continue to stand with them and speak out when their voices are unfairly silenced. We will unequivocally condemn comments by Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, who threatened cities in Israel, and comments by supreme leader Ali Khamenei regarding the destruction of Israel, as has been mentioned, including, most recently, when he said that “Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor...that has to be removed and eradicated”. These comments are an unacceptable incitement to violence against an entire population.
     We support the right of Israel to defend itself. We urge Canada to do everything in its power to avoid an escalation of conflict in the Middle East. New Democrats are deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Iran. We believe that Canada should continue to be firm in its dealings with Iran and push harder on human rights issues.

  (1310)  

    According to human rights organizations:
     [Iranian] authorities heavily suppressed the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, as well as freedom of religion and belief, and imprisoned scores of individuals who voiced dissent. Trials are systematically unfair. Torture and other ill-treatment was widespread and committed with impunity. Floggings, amputations and other cruel punishments were carried out [as a matter of grim routine]. The authorities endorsed pervasive discrimination and violence based on gender, political opinion, religious belief, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity. Hundreds of people were executed, some in public, and thousands remained on death row. They included people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime....
     Among those targeted were peaceful political dissidents, journalists, online media workers, students, filmmakers, musicians and writers, as well as human rights defenders including women's rights activists, minority rights and environmental activists, trade unionists, anti-death penalty campaigners, lawyers, and those seeking truth, justice and reparation for the mass executions and enforced disappearances of the 1980s.
     Many prisoners of conscience undertook hunger strikes to protest their unjust imprisonment.
    Popular social media sites have been blocked.
     Freedom of religion and belief was systematically violated in law and practice. The authorities continued to impose codes of public conduct rooted in a strict interpretation of Shi'a Islam on individuals of all faiths. Non-Shi'a Muslims were not allowed to stand as presidential candidates or hold key political offices.
    Widespread and systemic attacks continued to be carried out against the Baha’i minority. These included arbitrary arrests, lengthy imprisonment, torture and other ill-treatment, forcible closure of Baha’i-owned businesses, confiscation of Baha’i properties, bans on employment in the public sector and denial of access to universities.
     For Iranian authorities, the Baha’i have long played the role of first scapegoat of choice and are routinely blamed for everything from economic decline to Zionist spies.
    As well, Kurdish people in Iran are targeted.
     Iran's border guards continued to unlawfully shoot and kill, with full impunity, scores of unarmed Kurdish men known as Kulbars who work as cross-border porters between Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan. In September, security forces violently suppressed protests in Baneh and Sanandaj over the fatal shootings of two Kulbars, and detained more than a dozen people.
    There was a heavy police presence cross Kurdistan province in September when members of Iran's Kurdish minority held rallies in support of the independence referendum in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. More than a dozen people were reportedly arrested....
     Earlier in the year, judicial officials had exerted persistent pressure on the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology to request that Telegram relocate its servers to Iran and close tens of thousands of Telegram channels, which according to the judiciary “threatened national security” or “insulted religious values”. Telegram said it rejected both requests.

  (1315)  

    Other popular social media sites including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube remained blocked.
    Journalists and online media workers faced a renewed wave of harsh interrogations and arbitrary arrests and detentions before the presidential election in May. Those using Telegram were particularly targeted for harsh prison sentences, some exceeding a decade.
    Freedom of musical expression remained curtailed. Women were banned from singing in public and the authorities continued to forcibly cancel many concerts. In August, several hundred artists called on President Rouhani to end such restrictions.
    The authorities continued their violent raids on private mixed-gender parties, arresting hundreds of young people and sentencing many to flogging.
    Censorship of all forms of media and jamming of foreign satellite television channels continued. The judicial authorities intensified their harassment of journalists working with the Persian BBC service, freezing the assets of 152 former or current BBC journalists and banning them from conducting financial transactions.
    The Association of Journalists remained suspended.
    Scores of students continued to be barred from higher education in reprisal for their peaceful activism, despite President Rouhani's election promise to lift the ban.
    Bans on independent trade unions persisted and several trade unionists were unjustly imprisoned. Security forces continued to violently suppress peaceful protests by workers, including on International Workers' Day.
     Dozens of environmental activists were summoned for interrogation, detained and prosecuted for participating in peaceful protests against air pollution, disappearing lakes, river diversion projects and dumping practices.
    Opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi and the latter's wife, Zahra Rahnavard, remained under house arrest without charge or trial since 2011....
    Torture and other ill-treatment remained common, especially during interrogations. Detainees held by the Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guards were routinely subjected to prolonged solitary confinement amounting to torture.
    Failure to investigate allegations of torture and exclude “confessions” obtained under torture as evidence against suspects remained systematic.
    The authorities continued to deprive prisoners detained for political reasons of adequate medical care. In many cases, this was done as a deliberate punishment or to extract “confessions”, and it amounted to torture.
     Prisoners endured cruel and inhuman conditions of detention, including overcrowding, limited hot water, inadequate food, insufficient beds, poor ventilation and insect infestations.
    More than a dozen political prisoners at Karaj’s Raja'i Shahr prison waged a prolonged hunger strike between July and September in protest at their dire detention conditions. Some faced denial of medical care, solitary confinement and fresh criminal charges in reprisal....
    In February, the Supreme Court upheld a binding sentence issued by a criminal court in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province against a woman in retribution for blinding another woman.
    Dozens of amputation sentences were imposed and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. In April, judicial authorities in Shiraz, Fars province, amputated the hand of Hamid Moinee and executed him 10 days later. He had been convicted of murder and robbery. At least four other amputation sentences were carried out for robbery....
    In May, a woman arrested for having an intimate extramarital relationship was sentenced by a criminal court in the capital, Tehran, to two years of washing corpses and 74 lashes. The man was sentenced to 99 lashes....
    Trials, including those resulting in death sentences, were systematically unfair. There were no independent mechanisms for ensuring accountability within the judiciary. Serious concerns remained that judges, particularly those presiding over Revolutionary Courts, were appointed on the basis of their political opinions and affiliation with intelligence bodies, and lacked legal qualifications.

  (1320)  

    This past December and January, protests began in reaction to the Iranian budget. Iranian people engaged in widespread protests calling for clerics to be reined in, an end to corruption, the end of support for Assad in Syria, and the end of the dictatorship. Iran has reportedly arrested nearly 5,000 people during recent protests, and at least 25 were killed. The majority of those arrested are educated young people. These protests are the country's biggest unrest in a decade. Human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch have demanded that the deaths of protestors be investigated.
     Many of the concerns of protestors are about the Iranian economy. Unemployment remains high for youth; inflation is soaring; real wages are stagnating; and housing remains expensive and unaffordable to many. Some 80% of all workers in Iran are in insecure, temporary contracts. In the recent budget, which prompted protests across the country, the clerics were given billions to pay for religious libraries, for religious foundations, and to lead Friday prayers. This was on top of the purported further billions allocated to finance the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Since the protests, however, President Rouhani has announced some economic reforms.
    We are also encouraged by the many Iranians, including many women, who are currently speaking out for their rights. The hijab protests were started by Masih Alinejad, the founder of My Stealthy Freedom, an online movement that opposes the dress code.
    The hashtag #WhiteWednesdays quickly spread across social media, with women of all ages posting pictures of themselves wearing white as a symbol of protest. Dozens of women have been arrested in Tehran for removing their head scarves in public. Many women recorded their acts of defiance, waving their head scarves around in busy crowds.
     The NDP urges the Canadian government to advocate for the human rights of all those in Iran whose inalienable rights have been infringed.
    Across the country, talented Iranian nationals' permanent residence applications are stuck in our system. The government recently acknowledged that the problem exists but has taken no concrete action to fix it.
    The NDP is calling on the government to finally put an end to these delays once and for all. The government needs to immediately review the current system, identify the cause of delays, revise the process to prevent further delays, and ensure that Iranian nationals are not subject to wait times that are astronomically higher than those for other applicants.
    Coming back to the motion being debated today, one of the main reasons we believe it is important to maintain diplomatic ties with regimes we do not like is that it is crucial to have lines of communication open between our officials and the officials of other countries precisely for those times when we need to work for the release of one of our unjustly imprisoned nationals. How can Canada possibly defend our people when we have no one in the country to do it on our behalf, no one who knows the lay of the land, the right officials to approach, and so on?
    At the present time, Canada maintains diplomatic ties with a number of regimes that quite obviously do not share our values. Canada does this for the very practical reasons I have mentioned. My friends in the Conservative Party can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall hearing them call for shutting down our embassies or consulates in the Philippines, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There is no shortage of unsavoury regimes in the world.
    The NDP has communicated on multiple occasions the urgency and scope of the problems created by diplomatic tensions. I urge us, today, to understand the language that has been laid out before us with this motion and leverage the actual ways in which we can advance human rights in Iran.
    Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.
    Would she support closing our embassy in a country if the Government of Canada could not ensure or guarantee the safety of the diplomatic staff?

  (1325)  

    Mr. Speaker, what is important for us is to understand is that Canada is a middle power and we could be leveraging that soft power with any country. With respect to the ways we can close down consulate offices or reopen them, we can use the art of diplomacy to advance human rights much further. It does not have to boil down to whether an office is open or closed. Sometimes I hear this as an excuse to not use the art of diplomacy.
    Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague as she laid out the obvious human rights abuses very deep within the Iranian regime. She also talked, though, about the role that Canada could play in the Middle East, and I want her to elaborate a little more.
     One of the most surprising things I found with the former Harper government was when it decided to close the Iranian consulate. It made a political point and then left us completely outside of any credible conversation, especially at the time of the nuclear deal. The Harper government also abandoned the very large Iranian community in Canada, which should not have been demonized by that Conservative effort. It has done enormous work in building a better Canada. The Iranian community is involved in every aspect of our society and it deserves consular services.
    Given her work, does hon. colleague have concerns about the Conservatives continually demonizing this issue and its effect on the Iranian-Canadian community that looks to us to defend its rights?
    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question elicited a very emotional response in the House. That is reflective of the anger when we are emotional about things about which we care.
    Canadians really are engaged and care about the human rights of their fellow citizens in Iran. They want to work with them when they do their silent protests to advance human rights and democracy in Iran. The problem I see is that when people care emotionally, they lash out with a kind of anger that is toxic. This does not help us advance human rights.
     It takes incredible strength to put together the facts and find ways to engage the kinds of belligerent actors who does not see human rights the way we do, to the point where they have their own people protesting. It does not do us any good. It does not do us any good to have a toxic environment, instead of reaching out and engaging.
    Mr. Speaker, as I was looking at this, we know Iran has supported and sponsored terrorism, and has violated human rights in its country. The hon. member presented that she does not agree with an emotional response to these actions. What is concrete action would she see us take to try and prevent Iran from continuing to sponsor terrorism and continuing to violate human rights in its country?
    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question gives me an opportunity to clarify myself if I was misunderstood.
    I believe that any thoughtful and meaningful response that is compassionate to the people of Iran, that advances their human rights is an emotional one. However, it is less out of anger and more out of well-being. That is what I wanted to clarify.
    It takes incredible strength, as I said, to move forward and to engage.
    I spent the better part of my speech describing the human rights situation in Iran and its abuses because I wanted to convey a full understanding of how horrendous the human right situation was for people in Iran and how incredibly brave my sisters were for doing their protest. It is an incredible environment.
    I am thinking of some of the testimony we heard at the subcommittee for international human rights. We heard from retired Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire. He told us we needed to engage countries, not isolate them, if we wanted them to actually listen to us. We have to use our—

  (1330)  

    Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up very specifically on the question I asked the member earlier. I asked if she thought it would be reasonable to close an embassy in a case in which the security of Canadian diplomatic personnel could not be guaranteed. The member did not directly answer the question, but she said that sometimes we could still use diplomacy even if we did not have an embassy open. This is precisely our point. We can use back channels and find other ways of supporting Canadians in a country without upgrading our diplomatic relationship.
    In light of that, I would again ask this question. Does the member think it is legitimate to close an embassy if there is a security question there?
    Also, given what she said, is it not a basis for supporting the motion, saying, yes, we can have some dialogue and diplomacy outside of the framework of established diplomatic relations?
    Mr. Speaker, I listened earlier with interest as the member chastised someone else for not listening to his speech and for maybe not understanding.
    The issue is not black and white. If a government needs to close an office for safety, of course it can. It can also reopen it. What is the time frame? I do not know. Is that part of the debate here? That is all so hypothetical.
    We need diplomatic efforts to engage. I am not against engaging in diplomatic efforts and I am not against keeping people safe. To simplify the argument such that we have an “us” and “them” mentality, instead of actually creating consensus on how we can address, in the international community, the horrendous ongoing human rights abuses is really quite disappointing and frustrating for someone like me who understands the limited time we have in this place for debate about international human rights.
    Mr. Speaker, I really did appreciate my hon. friend's reflections on the good work being done in the human rights subcommittee.
    This is a very key point. I want to know if she would amplify on the conditions with which one would ever want to close an embassy, given the diplomatic benefit to having a presence on the ground when fighting for human rights.
    Mr. Speaker, we have so many knowledgeable people who have established relationships in troublesome places, in troublesome countries. When there are heated moments or there is a threat of escalating conflict, there is no denying we need to have safety. However, there is much in place that we have to gain back. Once we close an office, we sever very valuable ties that could be used in the future. It is invaluable.
    I suspect that this motion is meant to be toxic so we talk about these things and highlight these wedge issues.
    What it boils down to is that we need our diplomatic ties and our offices in every place where there is human rights abuse in order to support people and engage these countries. These sovereign nations will not care what we think if they do not have a relationship with us. How are we ever supposed to advance human rights with countries that do not have a relationship with us? What do they care what we think?
    That is the trick, that is the art of diplomacy. We need to have some kind of a presence in these countries. There are a lot of different ways we can do that through consulate offices. They do not have to be done in a cookie-cutter fashion.
    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this opposition day motion debate on an important subject. I have long described Iran as the most destabilizing force in the world right now, standing in the way of global peace and security. We are talking about that today in bringing the debate to the floor of the House of Commons.
     I would like to thank my colleague and the deputy shadow minister of foreign affairs, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, for helping advance the debate today, and for being an active participant in it.
    I have been following the debate, and I am amused by the fact that the Liberal parliamentary secretary and even some opposition members on this side of the House keep using the word “partisan”. The government often throws this out, saying “stop being so partisan”, as if in the chamber, which is designed for opposing points of view, debate, speech, and challenging the government, we are being partisan somehow if we suggest parts of the debate should focus on the horrendous and tyrannical regime in Iran. There is nothing partisan in that. In fact, it is an absence of leadership, of how quiet the Prime Minister has been vis à vis Iran.
    The Liberals were being partisan when they formed government and kept using the rhetoric “Canada is back”. Back to what, when it comes to Iran? Back to being silent in the face of the death of a Canadian, to being silent in the face of thousands being imprisoned? In February, Alex Neve of Amnesty International that confirmed thousands had been detained without charges in Iran.
    The Prime Minister was one of the few global leaders absolutely silent with respect to the protests in Iran, the democratic desire for a people to have human rights, a basic level of democratic rights and freedoms that we take for granted. The Prime Minister, who loves traversing the world as the global progressive, has been very silent with respect to Iran. That is why we are here today. If those members want to suggest we are partisan, well thank goodness we are partisan. One of the Liberals' own members, the member for Richmond Hill, has been an apologist for the regime, and has hosted delegations from Iran in Canada. Perhaps that is why the Prime Minister does not want to talk much about it. Maybe there is some debate in his caucus on how much we should engage in Iran, or how much we should call out its behaviour.
    Mr. Speaker, I got into a rhetorical flight so quickly that I forgot to mention I would be dividing my time with my friend from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.
    The first time the Prime Minister mentioned Iran in the House of Commons was in January 2016. He said, “We know that Iran is a cause for concern”. Later on he said that global safety would be through “responsible engagement”; “a cause for concern.” Nothing better illustrates the fact the Prime Minister has either been willfully blind with respect to the horrific conditions facing a lot of people in Iran or the fact he has been wanting to expand Canadian presence and negotiate aircraft sales, and this shows that the Liberal government has had the wrong approach when it comes to Iran. This debate is about that.
    When a regime is probably the most disruptive force to global peace and security, we have to be careful that our engagement with it is not normalizing that regime. Comments suggesting there is an elected government in Iran, as if the protests were just regular protests for tuition fees or something and they should negotiate with their elected officials, is irresponsible. The Prime Minister should condemn statements from his own caucus that will allow some Canadians to not have the proper view of a regime that is the most oppressive on earth.
    We have seen this even more in recent months. The death of Professor Seyed-Emami, a Canadian citizen in Evin prison, has eerie reminiscence of the death of photojournalist Zahra Kazemi in the same prison. Now it appears that Maryam Mombeini, who went to try to investigate the circumstances of her husband's death, who was illegally detained alongside thousands in Iran, cannot return home. This is the type of regime with which we are dealing.

  (1335)  

    In the same time, over the last 30 years or since the revolution of 1979, there has been an express desire for nuclearization of an Iranian regime, which would be a direct threat not only to Israel but to global security in the Middle East and around the world.
    This motion also highlights the horrific role that the Islamic revolutionary guard plays, with respect to oppressing its own people not just in Iran but around the world. It has been a direct funder and supporter of terror in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Gaza, and Palestinian-controlled territories, funding Hamas, funding terror, and not wanting peace, security, and stability. Therefore, I would think that condemning that should be something all members of this House would do.
     We are here today because of the general silence with respect to the current government's position on Iran. It seems that, after we pushed it, it is holding off on the aircraft sale. That is a refreshing development from us pushing the government on that. Boeing has said it will not sell any type of aircraft to the regime, at a time when more global attention is being paid to Iran, as it should be, because the international community has to condemn the actions of the regime. Just last week, the supreme leader called for genocide on the Jewish people. The Iranians have tried to normalize their positions of hate. We have to be very careful that in this rush, as the Prime Minister naively said in his first few months as the Prime Minister, of responsible engagement with the Iranian regime, we are not somehow normalizing that regime.
    I would point my friend the parliamentary secretary, who is listening to this debate, to the comments made in April by Madam Shirin Ebadi, who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner for her work as a human rights lawyer. She is an Iranian woman who is championing the cause of freedom and democratic rights. In an interview in April she told Bloomberg, “Reform is useless in Iran.” She went on to say, “The Iranian people are very dissatisfied with their current government. They have reached the point and realized this system is not reformable.” Therefore, a number of the elements we are bringing to this debate are to showcase that, and to demand that the Liberal government start speaking up for the people of Iran and the families impacted, like Ms. Mombeini. It should be speaking up for the very principles that it talked about at Charlevoix. That seems to be absent when it comes to Iran.
    We would also like the Liberals to correct the record, which was made fuzzy in January of this year by their own member for Richmond Hill, at a time when the Prime Minister was silent, and there was no clear direction from our foreign affairs minister. That single tweet by a Liberal member of Parliament sent a very bad signal. At a bare minimum, it was incredibly naive, or possibly worse. Therefore, I would like to see the government clearly renounce that view and not allow that member to host Iranian delegations in Canada.
    What else would I like to see out of this opposition day motion now that we are shining the bright light of accountability on a government that does not like it? I would like to see the government apply Magnitsky sanctions against the supreme leader and many of the key regime functionaries who promote hate and support terrorism. The Magnitsky sanctions should be applied immediately.
     I would like to see Iran put on the country control list. We have debated arms trade in this place. The Liberals seem to forget that they have the ability to stop all sales with regimes like Iran. Only North Korea is currently on that list. Iran should be immediately placed on country control list.
     I would like to see Iran removed from the SWIFT financial system. We have seen it directly fund terror operations around the world, putting people at risk, and in some cases using money from the Iranian deal previously negotiated. Access to the SWIFT system has allowed this to be moved.
     I would like a clear statement from the Prime Minister. Even if the Liberals support this motion today, I would like the Prime Minister to be clear in his renunciation of the regime, and to sanction the member for Richmond Hill for clouding the issue with respect to whether Iranians truly get to elect their government.

  (1345)  

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians can see through the selective retelling of history by this member. He brought up Amnesty International, and I am glad he did because Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other independent, credible human rights organizations have spoken clearly about our government's record in speaking out for human rights around the world. These non-partisan organizations have spoken about the contrast between our approach and our voice on human rights compared to the other government.
    I agree with the member that there is room for partisanship in this place on policy, and I agree with him that we need to have a strong debate on these issues. Does he not regret naming individual Canadians who are in harm's way and making them a partisanship issue?
    Mr. Speaker, I did find it ironic that the parliamentary secretary is suggesting our motion, and by extension my speech, is a selective retelling of history. That is what he said. I began my speech talking about the Prime Minister of Canada, his prime minister, and the first comments he made in this chamber on Iran, which were that “Iran is a cause for concern”. That certainly showed a real concern about regime when he said that it was a cause for concern.
    This debate is about putting in the public sphere a full debate on what Canada should be doing. I ended my speech with a number of things I think we should be doing. With regard to regret for naming people, we are hearing from Iranian Canadians, the Persian community in Toronto, who have been in touch with us. I met with them weeks ago, and they are concerned for their families. We have heard that from some of the debates in this House. They are concerned for Ms. Mombeini.
    To suggest reports in the newspaper that highlight the death of Professor Seyed-Emami and the tragic case of his wife being detained is something we should not talk about, no, Canadians need to know that their parliamentarians are pushing for Canadians to be respected. The fact that Evin prison, from Zahra Kazemi to Professor Seyed-Emami, is a place where our own citizens have been tortured, and in the case of Zahra Kazemi, raped, we should not be silent but we should be shouting this from the mountaintops. I have said that we need to hold Iran to account.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to state in this House I am supportive of my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh's comments that emphasize the importance of using diplomacy and building relationships on the ground as a way to move forward and support people living within regimes and nations where their human rights are not being respected. I feel many Iranian Canadians trying to get permanent residency here in Canada are concerned that part of that delay is that there is not an embassy in Iran.
    What is the proof that going a different route would have more impact on restoring human rights for people in Iran, that is, closing an embassy rather than opening an embassy and keeping diplomatic relations going?
    Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. She mentioned the speech by her colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh highlighting some of the amazing work done by human rights advocates, by protesters on the ground. The Prime Minister's silence in the face of thousands of people protesting, thousands illegally detained, does not send the right signal.
    There are two things with regard to the question she has raised about engagement and the embassy. When we cannot guarantee the safety of our own personnel from Global Affairs, we should be very hesitant. People have mentioned Ken Taylor. I had the opportunity several times to have lunch with Ken Taylor while he was still alive. He was known for the “Canadian caper”, where we had to hide American diplomats in Iran, so actually there is a track record of diplomats being targeted in that country. That is the first thing.
    The second is perhaps just as important. The more we normalize relations with what I would suggest is a tyrannical regime, the more we are playing into their propaganda war. By selling aircraft and having the MP for Richmond Hill hosting delegations, we are treating them like they are a friend. We have to isolate them. That is what all freedom-loving countries should do: isolate, call out that conduct. It is not just Iran. I have listed the countries where it has been proven they are funding terror. This regime, over time, has to go. When there are people on the ground spontaneously pledging for that, Canada should not be silent. We should show we have solidarity with them.

  (1350)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this motion and encourage my colleagues to do the same, especially after the excellent statement by my colleague and friend from Ontario on the importance of having every member of Parliament support this motion.
    I will deliver my presentation in three parts. First, I will address the aspects of the motion. Second, I will explain why it is important to raise public awareness in Canada about what is happening in Iran. Third, I will give a concrete example that illustrates that what happens there has repercussions here.
    The motion moved today seeks to strongly condemn the current regime in Iran for its ongoing sponsorship of terrorism around the world, including instigating violent attacks on the Gaza border. We recently saw to what extent Iran fuels tensions in several countries instead of easing them and avoiding violent clashes. Instead of looking for peaceful resolutions, Iran tries to create conflicts.
     The motion also condemns recent statements made by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for genocide against the Jewish people. Canada cannot tolerate that. Conflicts like this must be resolved peacefully and respectfully. We cannot sanction a country that calls for genocide, particularly against the Jewish people. God knows the Jews have seen their share of suffering throughout history.
     The motion also calls for Iran to abandon its current plan and immediately cease its nuclear weapons development program. We are also asking our government to abandon its soft approach and its current plan and to immediately cease any and all negotiations or discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran to restore diplomatic relations. Our government must demand that the Iranian regime immediately release all Canadians and Canadian permanent residents who are currently detained in Iran, including Maryam Mombeini. She is a Canadian citizen, and we want her back. It is important to state her name in both French and English and to demand that the government bring back the people who went over there. Maryam is the widow of Professor Kavous Sayed-Emami. Nor must we forget Saeed Malekpour, who has been imprisoned since 2008. It is now 2018.
    Furthermore, the motion urges the government to immediately designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a listed terrorist entity under the Criminal Code of Canada, and to stand with the people of Iran and recognize that they, like all people, have a fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other forms of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.
    If we truly want to promote the fundamental rights that our country is built on, we also need to be vigilant and speak out when heads of state behave like tyrants. Iran is one such example. The Iranian government acts very harshly toward its people, and the Liberal must not look away from these situations. They must speak out. Right now, it seems like the Liberals want to downplay the relationship with Iran, but that would be tantamount to condoning the hateful statements in question, which are diametrically opposed to Canadian principles and rights.
    Everyone on this side of the House, and probably every MP, recognizes that Iran's brutal regime is a threat to global peace and safety. As we have seen over the past few months, Ali Khamenei's oppressive regime has turned on its own citizens and continues to sponsor terrorism abroad. It is especially obsessed with destroying Israel, a democratic country in the Middle East, which is totally unacceptable.

  (1355)  

    This is why we must never hesitate to denounce the Iranian regime and take action against it, given its support for terrorism, its Holocaust denial, and its repeated threats toward Israel.
    The government likes to say that it must be a strong voice for freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. This is great for Canada, but it would also be great for the people of Iran. At present, however, the Liberal government says nothing and will not lift a finger when the time comes to defend the rights and freedoms of Iranians. The problem here is that if Canada does not play this role and does not defend those values, they will be threatened right here at home. That is why we are concerned about this government's complacency regarding a brutal regime that has such contempt for its own people.
    An activity funded by Iran, a hateful demonstration calling for the eradication of the Israeli people, no less, was held yesterday not in the streets in Tehran, but in Toronto. This happened right here at home, in our streets, on the grounds of the Ontario legislature, where a new government was just democratically elected. How can such incitements to violence be tolerated?
    That is why every parliamentarian has the responsibility and moral obligation to condemn violence and hate speech. That is why it is important to support not just the motion itself, but also the spirit of the motion.
    For example, the spiritual leader Shafiq Huda called for the eradication of the Israeli people, in clear violation of the Criminal Code. There are sanctions and a complaint was filed with the police. Unfortunately, we learned that one of the organizations that was part of this rally received funding from the current government under the Canada summer jobs program.
    Members will recall that the government introduced an attestation to ensure that organizations that receive taxpayers' money respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, the leader of one such organization is promoting hate in the streets of Toronto.
    The government needs to wake up; it has the opportunity to do so by supporting the motion before the House today.
    The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis will have two minutes for his speech and five minutes for questions and answers when the House resumes debate on this motion.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

[Translation]

Gasoline Prices

    Mr. Speaker, the only thing rising faster than gas prices in Quebec is the blood pressure of consumers, who are being forced to pay abnormally high retail markups. That is not without consequences.
    A survey showed that one in three Quebeckers are reconsidering their summer vacation plans because of gas prices. That is bad news for families, and even worse news for remote regions like the Gaspé, whose economies depend on summer tourism.
    We asked the Minister of Innovation to order the Competition Bureau to look into the possibility of a gas cartel, but he did not respond. Even the Government of Quebec asked him whether he was going to take steps to ensure that the gasoline market is fair and equitable, but again he did not respond.
    With the price of gas as high as it is, only a Liberal minister would allow himself the luxury of falling asleep at the wheel.

  (1400)  

[English]

Humber River—Black Creek

    Mr. Speaker, community is not a location; it is a feeling, a feeling of acceptance, reliance, and trust. I am thankful for the many individuals who have contributed to my riding's sense of community, but today I want to specifically reference the Totera family.
     Tony Totera is an Italian immigrant who spent his childhood mastering the inner workings of Italian cuisine. In 1972, he and his family brought this taste to the neighbourhood of Jane and Finch, and has since then been a trusted provider to our community's great restaurants and hotels.
    For 40 years, Eddystone Meats has been a place in which customers can trust, but more than that, the Totera family has been a group in whom our whole community could trust. Their commitment to the riding is inspiring, with a true heart for helping the community through fundraising and volunteer work.
    I want to thank them for their 40 years of kind service to my riding, and to all of Canada. Congratulations.

Father's Day

    Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is Father's Day, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to and honour fathers across Canada. Fatherhood is a challenging, beautiful, and immensely important vocation. Fathers contribute immeasurably to the strength of their families and to the success of our communities.
    My life has been informed by amazing examples of dedicated fatherhood. My father, Ernie Anderson, continues to be a voice of wisdom and encouragement in my life, and likes to remind me that he is my biggest fan. His example of integrity and hard work has been, and continues to be, a constant inspiration.
    My husband Milton has been another source of inspiration. His unfailing love and dedication has provided me and our children and grandchildren with constant support, and created a space for us all to flourish.
    I hope Canadians across the country will join me this Sunday in showing their appreciation to the fathers who have helped shape their lives.

Bill Davis

    Mr. Speaker, after a bitter and protracted strike between the United Mine Workers of America and the British Empire Steel and Coal Company, harsh actions by the company brought the situation to a head.
    On this day in 1925, striking coal miners marched to the company's power facility at New Waterford Lake, Cape Breton, in an attempt to have their power and water restored to their town after the company had shut it off. In the crowd of 3,000 was William Davis. Upon arrival, they were met by company police. Tensions rose, and the police fired 300 rounds into the crowd, injuring many, and killing Bill Davis. In the weeks following, company stores were looted and property vandalized. To quell the riots, 2,000 troops were brought in. This remains the second-largest deployment of troops for a domestic conflict in Canadian history, after the North-West Rebellion.
    Today, in mining communities across Nova Scotia, people gather to pay tribute to Bill Davis, whose death stands as a symbol of the determination and resilience of Canadian coal miners, and to recognize the sacrifices made by organized labour in building this great country.

Justice

    Mr. Speaker, we will soon rise for the summer recess. There is much to do before then, but I would like to take this moment to highlight the exceptional work of certain individuals in my community who have contributed much to the debates in this place on matters of national interest.
    Over the last four months, the justice and human rights committee has studied the scourge of human trafficking. Let it be clear: human trafficking is a horrible crime, robbing individuals of their basic human rights. I listened to the shocking testimony of survivors, who told us that some communities are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, such as indigenous women and girls and migrant communities.
    I would like to thank especially Professor Cecilia Benoit of the University of Victoria, and Rachel Phillips and Sadie Forbes of Peers Victoria Resources Centre, who contributed so much to the justice committee study. Their thoughtful testimony will help us to build better legislation.
    As we prepare to go home for the summer, let us recommit to building a better country, where no one is left behind.

Indigenous Affairs

    Niwakoma cuntik Tansai Nemeaytane Awapantitok.
    Mr. Speaker, the Indian residential school system was a systematic plan to remove indigenous children from their homes, families, and cultures to facilitate in the stated policy of killing the Indian in the child. When Prime Minister Harper apologized here in the House on behalf of all Canadians 10 years ago, it represented an essential step on the path toward healing and reconciliation. Now, on the 10th anniversary of that apology, our government is translating those poignant words into eight indigenous languages. We have also followed through on the spirit of that apology with concrete action, both renewing the relationship on a foundation of implementation of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership, and with historic investments in the priorities of indigenous communities.
    The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action now provide all Canadians with a renewed path forward on this shared journey of reconciliation. We must all commit to working together to heal those past wrongs.
    Tapwe akwa khitwam hi hi.

  (1405)  

Father's Day

    Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is Father's Day. We celebrate fathers and grandfathers by reminding them of their importance in each of our lives. I loved my father and father-in-law. Both were incredible men of God, who lived their faith with integrity and commitment. They loved their families and were role models for good. I am now the role model for my children and grandchildren. I also want to be a man who loves God and his family.
    Men's health is also important, and I want to thank Dr. Larry Goldenberg and the Canadian Men's Health Foundation. They are working to raise awareness of preventable health problems. One big health problem for men is prostate cancer. I am a prostate cancer survivor, thanks to answered prayers, and Dr. Larry Goldenberg, one of the best urologists in the world.
    I urge men to get their prostate checked every year, and also to check their blood PSA level. Those checkups can save their lives. I wish men a happy Father's Day.

Canadian Men's Health Week

    Mr. Speaker, as it is Father's Day this week, it is also Canadian Men's Health Week and the Don't Change Much campaign.
     As parliamentarians, we work long hours and are constantly travelling back and forth to our constituencies. Therefore, it is very important that we take care of our physical and mental health. Many people look up to us as role models, and it is important that we take care of our health and promote a healthy lifestyle so others do the same.
     It does not take much. Last week, I had the privilege of hosting the Canadian Men's Health Foundation's men's health caucus breakfast. I would like to thank the Canadian Men's Health Foundation president, Wayne Hartrick, for raising awareness on this vital issue. It was inspiring to hear from two former CFL players, British Columbians, Tommy Europe and Shea Emry, on how important it is to be healthy and active. Through simple changes, such as 30 minutes of daily activity or sleeping for seven hours, we can improve our life expectancy by up to 70%.
    I want to commend Dr. Larry Goldenberg, a pioneer of prostate cancer and research, for his commitment to treating prostate cancer and other diseases, and preventing them from affecting men at an earlier age. Enjoy a happy—
    The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge Park.

Ramadan

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark Ramadan, the holy month of fasting and revelation for those of the Muslim faith. In my community, I had the opportunity to join my Muslim brothers and sisters at Jumma and lftar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Usman Gousi Masjid, Masjid Al Jannah, and Masjid Zakariya.
    Leading up to Ramadan, I had the pleasure to attend several fundraisers that demonstrated the generosity of the Muslim Canadian community. This year, the Muslim Welfare Centre celebrates 25 years of service to humanity. Some of its key projects include Project Ramadan and the Inuvik Food Bank in the Northwest Territories.
    I want to commend the Muslim Welfare Centre, and Islamic Relief and others for their generosity and service to making our world a better place. As we celebrate Eid al-Fitr this week, let us recommit to ensuring that we not only celebrate our diverse Muslim communities in Canada, but also build a country and a world where all our children can live in peace, security, and harmony.
    Eid Mubarak.

National Blood Donor Week

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize National Blood Donor Week, especially significant this year because it is the 10th anniversary. The National Blood Donor Week Act was enacted by the Parliament of Canada in 2008 under the previous Conservative government.
    I want to thank the thousands of Canadian blood donors who are the lifeblood of their communities. We cerebrate every donor, volunteer, and supporters during National Blood Donor Week. People who donate their blood know they are participating in an incredible act of service that can have such a big impact. This year alone, over 100,000 new donors are required across Canada to help with blood transfusions. All Canadians will either need blood themselves or know someone who will.
    I encourage all Canadians to take the time to celebrate and to thank a blood donor during National Blood Donor Week. I urge all members and Canadians who are able to give life by donating blood to do so, and remember that, it is in us to give.

  (1410)  

[Translation]

Harold Thomas Herbert

    Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a long line of members for Vaudreuil—Soulanges who helped build our community. Today, I would like to draw attention to the contribution of Harold Thomas Herbert. A member of the British air force and a Spitfire pilot during the Second World War, Hal built his life in our historic town of Hudson, where he is well known for his community service and his contribution to the development of Manoir Cavagnal.

[English]

    It is his work as a member of Parliament under Pierre Trudeau that we have all benefited from. Hal made history on July 9, 1982, when his bill passed the House of Commons renaming July 1 “Canada Day”, which was used and celebrated for the first time on July 1, 1983.
    Thirty-five years later, and on behalf of the entire House, I want to thank his wife Madelaine Herbert and grandson Matthew, who join me in Ottawa today, and posthumously express my thanks to Hal for giving us a day that we all celebrate on July 1: Canada Day.

[Translation]

    Happy Canada Day.

[English]

Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group

    Mr. Speaker, I join all members in welcoming to Canada a delegation of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, led by First Vice-Speaker Iryna Gerashchenko and the co-chair of the Ukraine-Canada parliamentary friendship group Ivan Krulko.
    The delegation is here to advance the special and strategic relationship between Canada and Ukraine, based on historic bonds that extend over 125 years and rooted in the 1.4 million strong Ukrainian Canadian community.
    Building upon the unanimously passed Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-Ukraine defence co-operation arrangement, as well as the military assistance provided through Operation Unifier, jointly we will be discussing Ukraine's security, human and economic development, and its Euro-Atlantic integration.
    To our Verkhovna Rada friends, Canada's Parliament stands shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine during this time of Russian military aggression and occupation.
    Slava Ukraini. Slava Kanadi.

[Translation]

Security

    Mr. Speaker, the G7 summit having now come to a close, on behalf of myself and the people of Quebec City, I want to congratulate the Integrated Security Unit partners: the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, the Service de police de la Ville de Québec, and especially chief Robert Pigeon.
    A deployment of such magnitude requires a huge amount of preparation. When events like these are over, some people feel as though there was too much police presence, but we have to be prepared, because there is no room for error when it comes to protecting the public. We should be proud of keeping our city pristine, and more importantly, of ensuring that our many business owners did not have to worry about submitting claims to be reimbursed for property damage. Mr. Pigeon and the Service de police de la Ville de Québec have all my respect for planning out every detail with such professionalism, and for allowing controlled demonstrations in a healthy and respectful democracy.
    We must never forget that upholding democracy means upholding both my freedom and my neighbour's freedom.

[English]

Filipino Heritage

     [Member spoke in Tagalog]
    [English]
    Mr. Speaker, the Filipino heritage community is going to be hitting one million people in the next two to three years. Canada's Filipino heritage community is enriching every aspect of our society, whether it is our culture or our economy, as we see that community continue to grow and prosper.
    This week we are going to be celebrating 120 years of Philippine independence. Every region of our country is going to be celebrating Filipino heritage in terms of recognizing what the Philippines has done for Canada.
    Going beyond immigration, we need to look at ways in which we can expand issues such as trade, tourism, and so much more.
    It does not matter where one goes in Canada: Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto, or Edmonton. In every region, we are celebrating Filipino heritage, Canada-style.

  (1415)  

National Day of Healing and Reconciliation

    Mr. Speaker, June 11 marks the anniversary of the Canadian government's apology for the residential school program.
    Canadians now know more about their colonial history, the abuses suffered by first nations, Métis, and Inuit people at the hands of their government, and they know more about their indigenous neighbours and the culture that they celebrate. Though 10 years may seem like a long time, we have an even longer process ahead of us.
    I am inspired by the work of our youth, who lead us in ways that adults have never led. Like the students in the Treaty Four club at Riverview Collegiate in Moose Jaw, who learn from and educate their peers about local first nations culture. Their work encourages us all to pursue reconciliation through learning and teaching about indigenous culture.
    On our national day of healing and reconciliation, I call on everyone in Canada to follow the example of these students and find ways to turn the promise of reconciliation into action within their communities.

Apology for Residential Schools

    Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago today, Prime Minister Harper gave a heartfelt apology to former students and their families for Canada's role in the operation of residential schools. In it he stated:
    The Government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes, often taken far from their communities. Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed. All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities. First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools. Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home.
    Today, I am honoured to recognize the courage of thousands of survivors who told their stories. Their message is now being passed on in schools and communities across Canada.
    We all must acknowledge this painful history and walk the reconciliation journey together.

[Translation]

Education for Women and Girls

    Mr. Speaker, the G7 summit in Charlevoix was a huge success, in particular with the historic announcement of a $3.8-billion investment in education for women and girls in conflict situations and fragile states. Gender equality, and the right to education for women and girls have been priorities for this government since day one.

[English]

    Our feminist international assistance policy is making a real difference for women and girls around the world, and this announcement for Canada and our partners, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, the European Union, and the World Bank, is a new and remarkable example.
    I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the non-governmental associations involved in making this accomplishment a reality.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

[English]

International Trade

    Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, Canadians witnessed, with shock and dismay, the U.S. administration hurl insults, verbal attacks, and threats of more tariffs at us. We are all Canadians first, and we will stand with Canadian workers and the families impacted by this escalating trade war.
    Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians what his plan is to resolve this impasse that we have with our closest ally and trading partner?
    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for her question and also thank members of the House and the great number of Canadians who have encouraged our government to continue to stand up for Canadian workers, as we are committed to doing.
    What the weekend told us is that the idea that there is a national security concern that the United States might have with respect to aluminum and steel industries in Canada, and the hard-working women and men who earn their living from those sectors, is in fact incorrect. We will always stand with Canadian workers and thank our colleagues opposite for their support.

  (1420)  

    Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, and I know we all know this, when politicians fight and when leaders argue, it is always the people who suffer. In this case, these unfair tariffs are hurting Canadian steel and aluminum workers, and additional sectors are being threatened.
    The government has said that the projected deficit is going to be just over $18 billion next year. Does the projected deficit account for a potential aid package to help mitigate the damage from this dispute?
    Mr. Speaker, again, we have said to Canadian steel and aluminum workers that this government and, in fact, all Canadians will have their backs,
    We have been unequivocal. These tariffs imposed by the United States are unacceptable. The Canadian and American economies are so closely linked that American tariffs will also hurt American workers.
    Our Prime Minister and our government have met with leaders of the industry to discuss how we can best support these workers. A few months ago, we told workers in their manufacturing plants that their government will have their backs. We will not stop working to support these sectors so vital to the economy of the whole country.
    Mr. Speaker, there are some things we could do right now that would create opportunities for Canadians who are impacted by this growing trade dispute.
    We could immediately ratify the TPP, the carbon tax on Canadian families and businesses could be scrapped, and we could eliminate trade barriers between provinces. These would all have positive effects.
    Will the Prime Minister begin working with Conservatives on these constructive solutions that will help Canadian families who will be impacted by this trade war?
    Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from my hon. colleague. As she well knows, it is a top priority, obviously, to ratify the CPTPP, and we are going to move quickly to introduce legislation before the House rises this summer.
    Canadians know that we have a good agreement that is going to open markets for them. We obviously welcome the Conservatives' offer to work with us. What we want to do is to have the best deal for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, so that workers and industries across this country understand that we will always open markets so that they can prosper today and in the future.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, after three years in office, the Liberal government is already running a $71-billion deficit, and that was before a trade war broke out with our top trading partner, the United States.
    Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his government will use a portion of this year's $18-billion deficit to implement measures to help the workers who will be hit by this first, or will the Liberals add more billions to the current deficit?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I am grateful to all members of the House and all Canadians, who have shown tremendous support for our government's actions in support of steel and aluminum workers.
    From the start, we said that the U.S. government's tariffs were completely unreasonable. We will continue to provide robust, effective support for these industries, which are so important to Canada's economy.
    Mr. Speaker, the first victims in any trade war are workers, businesses, and Canadians.
    The problem is that the Liberal Party's 2018 budget does not include any funding to address potential complications or crises that arise in the NAFTA negotiations.
    Can the Prime Minister tell us how he plans to support Canadian workers? Does he plan to impose the retaliatory tariffs originally announced for July 1 immediately, instead of waiting until then to implement them?
    Mr. Speaker, we have said unequivocally that these tariffs are completely unacceptable. We will take a balanced but firm approach in order to support the Canadian economy.
    The Canadian and American economies are so closely linked that this American decision will also harm workers in the United States.
    We have met with leaders and workers in these industries on a number of occasions to see how the federal government can support them. We will continue to support these women and men who are so important to the Canadian economy.
    Mr. Speaker, New Democrats stand in solidarity with the government and the Prime Minister against the provocative statements made by the Trump administration.

[English]

    The current tariffs are illegal and the additional threats will hurt Canadian and American workers. While Canadians stand together, President Trump stands alone. American lawmakers and U.S. allies strongly oppose Trump's erratic behaviour against their biggest and closest friend.
    Will the government work with all parties in the House to present a unified response to Trump?

  (1425)  

    Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. Yes, we will obviously work with all members of the House to stand up for Canadian workers to ensure that the women and men in these sectors so important to our economy are protected. We will also work with all members of the House to ensure that the response our government takes to these unjustified and unreasonable tariffs is measured and proportionate.
    We have said publicly that the national security pretext is absurd, and frankly, insulting to Canadians. That is why we are moving forward responsibly with retaliatory tariffs that are equivalent to the ones the United States has unjustly applied to Canada.

Natural Resources

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that response. Canadians need to know that we all are united in our response.

[Translation]

    There is another issue of national importance. As we know, the Trans Mountain pipeline spilled 4,800 litres of oil just two days before the government announced its intention of buying out the pipeline. The spill risks are very real, and there is no way to deal with a spill at this time.
    It was also just reported that two indigenous nations in British Columbia are actually opposed to the pipeline project but felt they had no choice but to sign letters of support.
    Will the government admit to the House today that it failed in its duty to consult first nations?
    Mr. Speaker, getting resources to market is a responsibility for every government, but it must be done with the greatest respect for the safety and protection of the environment.
    The Pipeline Safety Act strengthens Canada's pipeline safety system by enshrining the polluter pays principle in law.
    Under this act, companies are liable for any faults and must have sufficient resources to respond to such incidents. We promised Canadians that we would restore confidence in our regulatory processes, and that is what we are doing.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, two days before the Liberals bought a 65-year-old pipeline for $4.5 billion, that pipeline sprang a leak, but do not worry, said Kinder Morgan, it is just 100 litres. It turns out that the oil spill was 48 times larger than that, and thank God it did not happen over water, because these guys still do not know how to clean it up.
    Did anyone ever buy a used car and turn it on and it sounded real strange, but the seller cranked up the radio and said not to worry about it? That is exactly what the Liberals just did, maybe buying the biggest lemon in Canadian history. What kind of climate leader goes out and buys a 65-year-old, leaky pipeline anyway?
    Mr. Speaker, there are many questions in that question, but I will answer the first one first. Getting resources to market is a fundamental responsibility of any government, but that must be done with the highest regard to safety and the protection of the environment. The Pipeline Safety Act strengthens Canada's pipeline safety system, enshrining the polluter pays principle into federal law. Companies will be held liable, regardless of fault, and be required to have the resources, up to $1 billion, to respond to incidents.
    Mr. Speaker, I guess, being the owners, they have to put $1 billion aside they have not told us about.
    Whenever the Liberals talk about the pipeline, they love to wave around so-called agreements with first nations, but they will not ever tell us what those agreements actually are.
    Here is what Chief Robert Joseph said, one of the people the Liberals say support the pipeline:
     At the end of the day, we are not really in favour of any pipeline, but we believe it's going to go through anyway. They will not listen to anybody and that's the history of consultation with First Nations people..... They consult and go ahead and do what they were going to do anyways.
    Enough with the fake consultations. Enough with the divide and conquer strategies. When are the Liberals actually going to stand up for the principle of free, prior, and informed consent?
    Mr. Speaker, this government does not speak on behalf of first nations. Why does the hon. member think he can? The billion dollars is not government money. It is the polluter pays principle in the Pipeline Safety Act.
    The hon. member knows that there are communities that have different points of view on pipelines, including governments that all wear the New Democratic stripe. This is the time to bind people together, not divide them.

  (1430)  

Finance

    Mr. Speaker, the storm clouds have been gathering for a long time. Last year, when the government had an opportunity to save up for a rainy day, it blew all of its good fortune and ran deficits that were twice what they promised during the election, deficits that it now says will continue until 2045.
     Now that those storm clouds have turned into rain, does the government acknowledge that it failed to prepare Canadians for a rainy day?
    Mr. Speaker, we are happy to talk about how we have prepared our economy for the future. What we have done is made investments in Canadians. We started from day one, saying that what we needed to focus on was making sure that we got out from the very difficult employment situation, 7.1% unemployment, left to us by the previous Harper government.
    Now, fast forward a couple of years, we have the lowest unemployment rate we have seen in 40 years. The investments we have made in Canadians have worked. Our growth has improved. We are in a resilient situation from which to deal with challenges. Whether they come from the south, whether they come from our ability to get to international resource markets, those are—
    The hon. member for Carleton.
    Mr. Speaker, the government lucked out with a very short-term housing boom, a doubling of oil prices, and a roaring world economy. Many of these same factors are now in peril, yet instead of preparing for these difficult times, it has spent the cupboard bare with deficits that were twice and sometimes three times as big as it promised during the election. How can the government have been so irresponsible?
    Mr. Speaker, let us think about what was actually done to improve our economy. We started by lowering taxes on middle-class Canadians. We moved forward with child benefits for nine out of 10 families, giving them an average of $2,300 more after tax for their families.
    The kinds of things we did led to more disposable income for Canadians so they could put it back into our economy, creating growth and enabling us to be in a position where we can be resilient against challenges. That is where we are today. We are in a very fortunate situation where the right policies put us in a better position from which to deal with the challenges we face.

Carbon Pricing

    Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is fond of quoting the Fraser Institute with regard to the Kinder Morgan pipeline. He uses that institute's data to justify his position on that issue. That same institute says that 81% of middle-class taxpayers are paying more income tax since his government took office, $800 more. Now he wants to stack on top of those tax increases a carbon tax. Before the House leaves for the summer, will he tell us how much that carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family?
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect us to be thoughtful about how we grow our economy and how we actually address the threat of climate change. They know that a thoughtful climate plan needs to include a range of measures, some of them regulatory, such as the phase-out of coal and methane emissions, and investments in clean technology and investments in infrastructure, but a thoughtful plan also includes a price on carbon pollution.
     We will continue to take practical, cost-effective measures to tackle climate change. That is what Canadians expect us to do. The question I have for the leader of the opposition is, where is your climate plan?
    I am afraid I have to remind the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment to direct his comments to the Chair.
    The hon. member for Carleton.
    Mr. Speaker, the question is, when we direct an issue to the finance minister, why does he always go hiding? This was a fiscal question, a tax question. He has already raised taxes on 80% of middle-class taxpayers, according to the Fraser Institute. That is before the carbon tax, which he wants this House to approve in his budget bill.
    The question, again, for the finance minister, if he is not still in hiding, is how much that tax will cost the average Canadian family.
    Mr. Speaker, our government was elected on a platform to invest in Canadians, to grow the economy, and to protect the environment. Our plan is working. Canada's emissions are dropping, and our economy is growing. Since we formed government, hard-working Canadians have created 60% more full-time jobs than the Harper Conservatives did over the same period. We are leading all G7 countries in economic growth.
    Addressing climate change in a substantive way is something all Canadians expect. It is something we must do for our children. We are doing it in a thoughtful way, and we are growing our economy at the same time.

  (1435)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, you know how much I appreciate it when members speak both official languages. I will therefore give the Minister of Finance the opportunity to respond in French. Everyone in Canada will know that he speaks French very well.
    The question is on the Liberal carbon tax. The government knows full well how much the Liberal carbon tax is going to cost Canadian families. The problem is that the Liberals have the document in their hands and are keeping it from Canadians.
    Why play hide and seek with Canadians, Mr. Minister of Finance?
    As the parliamentary secretary just pointed out, I will remind the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent that he is to address his comments to the Chair.
    The hon. parliamentary secretary.
    Mr. Speaker, our government was elected on a platform to invest in Canadians, stimulate the economy, and protect the environment. Our plan is working. Canada's emissions are going down and our economy is growing.
    Since we formed the government, Canadians have created 60% more full-time jobs than Stephen Harper's Conservatives did during the same period. We also have the strongest economic growth in the G7. Our plan is working.

Finance

    Mr. Speaker, you are right. You can speak both French and English, as can the Minister of Finance. Once again, I am giving him the opportunity to speak French to all Canadians.
    With regard to the deficit, those people were elected by promising to run small deficits and attain a zero deficit by 2019. Instead, we have a colossal deficit that is three times the amount anticipated, and we have no idea when we will return to a balanced budget.
    Can the Minister of Finance tell us, either in French or in English, but preferably in French, when we will return to a balanced budget?
    Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our approach because it is the right one for Canadian families. We decided to invest in Canadian workers. That is very important to our efforts to grow the economy and reduce our unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 40 years. That is good for our economy and for families. Our economy is resilient for the future.

[English]

International Trade

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians were faced with a barrage of tweets and headlines after President Trump's G7 visit this weekend. His destructive comments about our industries, workers, and leaders will not help resolve the barriers we face in NAFTA.
    New Democrats believe we must stand up to Trump. The government cannot let jobs in steel, aluminum, farming, and manufacturing go unprotected. Could the minister tell the House what the government has planned for next steps to resolve this ever-growing trade dispute with our largest trading partner?
    Mr. Speaker, we certainly share my colleague's concerns. In terms of supporting Canadian workers in the sectors she identified, we view these American trade actions as unreasonable and unjustified. The Prime Minister has said to Mr. Trump, privately, everything he has also said publicly.
    We look forward to working with all members of the House, and more importantly, with all Canadians as well, to support workers in these sectors and show the Americans that these trade actions will, in fact, have a negative impact on American workers as well.
    Mr. Speaker, in one of those tweets yesterday, the president stated that he is still considering a tariff on the Canadian auto sector. Trump maintains that Canadian autos are a security threat to the U.S., but we all know that there is no greater security partner to the U.S. than Canada.
    Sixty-five per cent of all car parts in Canadian assembled vehicles are made in the U.S., and 120,000 Canadian workers will be the first to pay the price. How is the government preparing for what could be a devastating attack on Canada's auto industry?
    Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for Canadian auto workers to know that our government stands firmly with them in the face of this seemingly ridiculous American threat.
    With respect to the national security investigation, let me be extremely clear. The idea that Canada and Canadian cars should pose any kind of security threat to the United States is, frankly, absurd. We will continue to raise this issue at the highest levels, as the Prime Minister did directly with the president and the minister did with Secretary Ross, as well. We will always support Canadian auto workers, and we look forward to working with all members of the House in that regard.

  (1440)  

Carbon Pricing

    Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario have given a clear message that they do not want a carbon tax. The Prime Minister's carbon tax is an attack on middle-class Canadians, a high cost on those who can least afford to pay it.
    At this time of uncertainty, higher taxes will just make things worse. When will the Prime Minister stop forcing his carbon tax on Canadians?
    Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate to have provincial and territorial leaders from coast to coast to coast who are taking serious action on climate change. Four provinces already price carbon pollution, and they led the country in growth last year.
     As the Premier of Manitoba said on Friday, his government is moving ahead with putting a price on pollution because he knows it will “help the environment without hurting the economy.”
    Doing our part to address climate change should not be a partisan issue. As Canadians, we all have a responsibility to take action to protect the environment and grow the economy for our children and our grandchildren.
    Mr. Speaker, Ontarians in my riding and across the province voted last week against a Liberal-imposed carbon tax. By removing the Liberal party's official status, the people of Ontario have spoken, sending a clear signal that they will not accept the Prime Minister's scheme for higher taxes.
    We know taxes make life more expensive for families, increasing the cost of home heating, electricity, groceries, gasoline, and much more. When will the Prime Minister stop forcing this rejected job-killing tax upon Canadians?
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect us to grow our economy and protect the environment for our children and our grandchildren. They know that a thoughtful climate plan includes regulatory measures, significant investments in clean technology and infrastructure, and a price on pollution to incent efficiency and grow the economy. As we saw in the Ontario election, 60% of Ontario voters supported parties that approved carbon pricing.
     We will continue to take practical cost-effective measures to tackle climate change and grow a clean economy. That is what Canadians expect us to do. I ask again ask Leader of the Opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker, where is your climate plan?
    I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary again, that when he uses the word “you” or “your”, he is referring to the Speaker. Some people think you are demanding a plan of some sort from the Speaker, which seems rather unusual.
    The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.
    Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, Ontarians roundly rejected the Liberals' higher taxes and irresponsible spending of the Liberal government. They rejected years of Liberal mismanagement and scandal. Most of all, they rejected the Liberal carbon tax.
    Last week the voters in this province spoke loudly and clearly. When will the Prime Minister start listening and stop forcing his destructive carbon tax on Canadians?
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that any thoughtful plan to address climate change and grow a clean growth economy requires a range of measures, including regulatory measures such as limiting methane emissions and including significant investments in growing a clean growth economy through specific investments in clean technology. It also includes a price on carbon pollution, something that virtually every economist in this world will endorse.
    For the hon. members across the aisle, who seem to think that pricing of carbon pollution was rejected in the Ontario election, 60% of Ontarians voted for parties that approved and supported our carbon pricing.
    In the galaxy, Mr. Speaker. A recent IPSOS poll found that 72% of Ontario residents saw a carbon tax as just a tax grab, while 68% saw it as a purely symbolic gesture. In other words, they see it for what it is.
    Last week, in the only poll that matters, the people of Ontario voted against the federal Liberal carbon tax and the rhetoric it used to force it down our throats. The Liberal carbon tax will hurt people who can least afford it. Therefore, will the Prime Minister stop forcing his carbon tax grab on Canadians?
    Mr. Speaker, as I have said, addressing climate change is a critical imperative of our time. It is something that we deserve, and our children deserve, to be focused on. However, we need to do it in thoughtful and constructive ways.
     Our focus on growing a clean growth economy concurrently with addressing climate change with substantive proposals that include the accelerated phase out coal, reducing methane emissions, and investments in green infrastructure will enable us to grow a clean growth economy and concurrently meet our international obligations to address climate change.

  (1445)  

International Trade

    Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister was asked by an American journalist about our supply management system. He said, “We were moving towards flexibility in those areas that I thought was very, very promising”. Last week the U.S. agriculture secretary said that the Canadian government offered to allow in more surplus U.S. dairy imports as a part of NAFTA renegotiations.
    We need a clear answer. Will the Minister of Agriculture stand in the House today, drop the talking points, and stop making concessions in our supply-managed sectors, yes or no?
    Mr. Speaker, as I said many times in the House, our government strongly supports and is fully committed to maintaining the supply management system. The Prime Minister has indicated this clearly, as have I. Cabinet ministers, caucus, and our negotiators at the NAFTA table have also indicated this very clearly.
    It is important to note that this is the party that fought to implement supply management, and I can assure my hon. colleague that this is the government that will defend supply management.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, Quebec milk producers are calling for an end to compromises on supply management. The milk industry has had enough of being a bargaining chip in trade agreements. Enough is enough. The NDP is clear: Canada must stop making concessions at the expense of Quebec producers. The government must not be flexible. It must be tough, and it must fully protect supply management in the NAFTA renegotiation.
    I have a simple question. Will the government do that?
    Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly committed to protecting supply management. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, and all members of our caucus believe in supply management, and we are committed to protecting it.

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, we know that plastic waste and marine litter pose a growing threat to our oceans and marine life. The health of our oceans and seas is fundamental to the way of life of shoreline communities across the country. Healthy oceans help provide good jobs and support economic prosperity for all. We need to take practical measures to protect our environment.
    Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change explain how the Government of Canada intends to help reduce plastic waste here in Canada?
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his question. The Government of Canada is determined to protect our environment and preserve our waterways so that all Canadians can continue to benefit from our oceans, lakes, and rivers. That is why I am proud to confirm that, as part of the Charlevoix blueprint for healthy oceans, seas, and resilient coastal communities, the Government of Canada has committed to take measures to improve recycling systems in order to promote clean growth and create good jobs for Canadians.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

    Mr. Speaker, last Friday, my leader and I went to Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle. We saw that there are some very fine facilities that continue to welcome more illegal entrants and a transportation service to take these illegals to the community of their choice. In our view, we have a government that instead of wanting to solve the border crisis is only providing for its long-term management and not putting an end to it.
    Does the minister believe that Canada should have two parallel immigration systems? Does he intend to renegotiate the safe third country agreement?
    Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is in discussions with his American counterpart on the safe third country agreement. We are pleased that the Leader of the Opposition finally visited Lacolle last week. We are very proud of the fact that he said that the RCMP and the Canada Border Services officers demonstrated a high level of professionalism in running operations. We are very pleased that he has finally realized this.

  (1450)  

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Transport for answering the question on behalf of another minister, and, yes, of course I saw what an excellent job our officers are doing, and I am proud of that. The problem, though, is that they are enforcing the law, and the current law has a loophole that allows people to enter Canada through Roxham Road. That has to change.
    Can the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship confirm whether he is renegotiating the safe third country agreement to fix this problem?
    Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians, protecting our well-managed immigration system, and meeting our international obligations.

[English]

    I am very glad the member opposite visited Lacolle. He got a chance to see the professionalism of our front-line staff. Maybe he also got a chance to thank them for the great work they are doing at the port of entry. In addition to that, I hope he explained to them the reason why he and his party chose to cut $390 million from CBSA, further jeopardizing border security operations.

Foreign Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Iran and its destabilizing influence in the world. The Iranian regime has been involved in the deaths of thousands of people, including Canadian citizens. It has been funding terror groups across the Middle East, including Hamas, which has been active recently in Gaza. Last week Iran's supreme leader openly called for genocide against the Jewish people.
    My question is simple. Why does the government seek to warm relations with a regime that can only be described as tyrannical?
    Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Our government will always defend human rights and hold Iran to account for its actions. The focus of any discussions we have with the Government of Iran will be on ensuring the return of Maryam Mombeini, that she is able to return safely to Canada, and on demanding answers in the death of Professor Seyed-Emami.
    Let me also be clear. Our government is committed to holding Iran to account for violations of human and democratic rights. That is why Canada led a resolution at the United Nations in November, calling on Iran to comply with its international human rights obligations.
    Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the government will be supporting our motion. This is contrary to its expansion of Canadian presence in Iran. It is contrary to its desire to sell aircraft to Iran. It is contrary to one of its own members hosting delegations from Iran in Canada.
    Will the minister commit to supporting our motion and ceasing all dealings with the Iranian regime?
    Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We deeply oppose Iran's support for terrorist organizations, its threats toward Israel, its ballistic missile program, and its support for the murderous Assad regime in Syria. As my colleague just said, the focus of any discussions with the Government of Iran will be on ensuring the safe return of Maryam Mombeini and to ask it questions in the suspicious death of her husband, Professor Seyed-Emami.
     In November, Canada led a UN resolution calling on Iran to comply with its human rights obligations. We will always hold Iran to account for its actions.

[Translation]

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, the plastics charter that the Prime Minister signed at the G7 disappointed almost everyone. The Prime Minister did not even mention a strategy for reducing plastic use or a ban on single-use plastics. Canadians want meaningful action and legislation that will reduce the use of plastics to protect our oceans, and they want them now.
    Will the Prime Minister promise to work with the provinces, municipalities, and indigenous communities to implement a national strategy to combat plastic pollution?
    Mr. Speaker, plastic pollution is a growing problem in Canada and around the world. We want to lead by example by reducing the use of single-use plastic within government, increasing how much plastic is recycled and reused, and avoiding purchasing products that come in non-reusable plastic packaging. We are working very hard on this.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, this week, Canada signed a so-called ocean plastics charter at the G7 that left Canadians disappointed. Canadians were expecting an action plan with strategies and clear targets, but instead we got a non-binding, vague outline that misses the mark entirely.
     A&W Canada, the U.K., Vancouver, and Seattle have all taken leadership to eliminate single-use plastics, but the Liberals still lack the courage it takes to solve the plastics problem here at home.
    Where is the Prime Minister's commitment to a real, effective, and bold national strategy to combat plastic pollution?

  (1455)  

    Mr. Speaker, plastic pollution is clearly a growing problem in Canada and around the world. We are looking at the best ways to lead by example, reducing plastic use within government, increasing how much plastic can be recycled or reused, and avoiding purchasing products that come in non-recyclable packaging.
     We recognize the important work being done by municipalities, provinces, and businesses, and we are looking to work with them to develop an effective national strategy. It is important we actually are working with others who have been doing work in this area to ensure that it is an effective and thoughtful national strategy. Prince Edward Island, Montreal, St. John's, Victoria have all taken a step forward, and we will work with them actively.

Employment

    Mr. Speaker, thousands of young Canadians have been denied summer jobs because the groups that would have hired them refuse to bow to the Prime Minister's imposed values test. One group that ticked the PM's attestation box is the Islamic Humanitarian Service. At the annual al-Quds' Iranian hatefest at the Ontario legislature, Sheikh Shafiq Hudda, of this same organization, called for genocide, the eradication of Israelis. The minister claimed that the Liberals' imposed values would protect rights. What does she say today?
    Mr. Speaker, our government is very proud of the fact that it is our government that doubled the Canada summer jobs program, ensuring that over 70,000 kids each summer since we have taken office have had the opportunity to get good, quality summer jobs. All organizations that are approved through the Canada summer jobs program must adhere to the terms and conditions of the program. If in fact an organization does not adhere to those terms and conditions, it is not eligible for the reimbursement of that student's salary. I encourage the member to bring those concerns forward to the department.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, there was an illegal protest yesterday in Toronto, where Sheik Shafiq Hudda, from the Islamic Humanitarian Service, made hateful statements calling for the eradication of the Israeli people. A police complaint was filed.
    However, as we now know, this organization received funding from the Liberal government through the Canada summer jobs program, in the riding represented by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Promoting genocide is a crime.
    What does the minister have to say to this, and how can she be proud of such a blunder?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, all applicants for the Canada summer jobs program must submit an application, which is thoroughly vetted by the department. We ask that the organizations do not use their summer students in a way that would fundamentally work to undermine the rights of Canadians. That is why any organization that receives these monies and uses them in a way that does not adhere to the terms and conditions will not receive reimbursement for that summer student. I encourage the member to bring the name forward to the department.
    Mr. Speaker, last week, a small historic sawmill museum in Nova Scotia said it will close its doors indefinitely because it was denied funding from the Canada summer jobs program. For the past decade, the museum has used funds to hire students for daily tours. However, this year it refused to sign the Liberals' values test. The Liberals are forcing Canadians to say that their values are the Prime Minister's values, and are imposing fiscal consequences if they do not. How can the Prime Minister justify stopping funding for a non-profit, non-religious museum, and killing summer jobs for students in Nova Scotia because of his values test?
    Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly proud of this government. It has put youth employment, and the goal of ensuring that young students get job experience, at the front and foremost of our plan to ensure that young people have success in the workplace. We have helped hundreds of faith-based groups, not-for-profits, businesses, and public sector groups hire students. We will meet our target of 70,000 students again this year. While the Conservative Party continues to engage in a campaign of misinformation and fear, we are ensuring that 70,000 young people have good jobs this summer that will help them in their future.

Indigenous Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, last fall, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls released its interim report. One of the recommendations it included called for the creation of a living legacy through the commemoration of the women and girls and two-spirited people who have lost their lives. Can the Minister of Status of Women please tell this House what actions our government is taking to honour the legacy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls?

  (1500)  

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her effective advocacy on behalf of the people of Brampton North.
    In response to the commission's interim report, our government announced a commemoration fund worth $10 million over the next two years, for national, regional, and local indigenous groups and women's organizations to honour the lives and legacies of our stolen sisters. Our government remains committed to advancing reconciliation and ending the national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

    Mr. Speaker, last week in Uganda, I met many LGBTI refugees. They told me about the incredible discrimination and persecution they have faced, even from the UNHCR. However, the Prime Minister has refused to make the rainbow refugee assistance program permanent, has significantly reduced the ratio of LGBTI refugees that Canada accepts, and refuses to press the UN for improvement reforms to LGBTI protection in its resettlement programs. Will the Prime Minister make the rainbow RAP program permanent?
    Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the record that this government has had with respect to promoting LGBTQ2 rights both domestically and abroad. We have worked with the UNHCR and private sponsors to identify the most vulnerable refugees, including members of the LGBTQ2 community. We have funded the Rainbow Refugee Society for two years. We have worked very closely with them on identification of those cases. The fact of the matter is that our record speaks for itself. The record of the Conservative Party is one of a party where, when their minister of immigration was caught removing LGBTQ2 rights from the citizenship guide, it was after an uproar that he put it back in.

Foreign Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia is now the largest non-U.S. destination for Canadian military exports, but how many exports were sent to the U.S.? Well, we do not know, because the Canadian government does not track or regulate these exports. Today we are voting on Bill C-47, which does not address this massive loophole. However, the experts and the 23,000 citizens who recently signed a petition say that this must be fixed before Canada accedes to the Arms Trade Treaty.
    Will the government work with the experts and fix that bill?
    Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to get up in this House many times to talk about how proud our government is to see Bill C-47 move through Parliament so Canada can accede to the ATT. Here is what Bill C-47 would allow Canada to do. It would allow Canada to set an example for countries that do not have effective arms controls. It would enshrine international human rights law and gender-based violence, in law, as criteria for arms exports, and it would control arms brokering. It would allow Canada to do all of that, and the NDP voted against it all as well.

Employment

    Mr. Speaker, young entrepreneurs from across Canada are in Ottawa today to receive mentorship and to learn from business leaders. I am so pleased that one of those young entrepreneurs is Coltin Handrahan from my riding. He is aggressive, and he wants to build for the future.
    Would the Minister of Small Business and Tourism be so kind as to tell the House what the government has in mind to give these young folks the opportunities to build a more prosperous Canada?
    Mr. Speaker, 25 youth from across our country are here in the nation's capital for Youth Can Do It. With the support of the Business Development Bank of Canada and Futurpreneur, we are helping Canada's young entrepreneurs get the mentorship, skills development, and start-up financing they need to bring their ideas to market. Budget 2017 provided $14 million to Futurpreneur so it can help even more young entrepreneurs, almost half of whom are women. I would like to thank my colleague from Malpeque for his continued support of young entrepreneurs, including the shout-out to Coltin from his riding, founder of Golden Custom Clothing.

Ethics

    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries is under federal investigation for awarding a lucrative surf clam quota to his Liberal friends and family. His shady conduct has ensured that clam harvesting will not even happen this year, because the company he personally selected cannot even buy a boat. Meanwhile, the hard-working people of Grand Bank are losing their jobs because this minister wanted to make a few bucks for his friends.
    Will the Prime Minister put an end to clam scam once and for all, and stand up for the people of Grand Bank?

  (1505)  

    Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to stand up for the hard-working women and men, and not only of Newfoundland and Labrador who work in the fishery and the fish processing sector. My colleague, who represents Grand Bank, has been working on a number of proposals in partnership with indigenous communities and others, which will bring greater prosperity to his constituency and hopefully the people of Grand Bank as well. Our decision to include indigenous partners in the lucrative surf clam fishery was the right decision, and we continue to believe that this offers opportunities for reconciliation.

[Translation]

Marijuana

    Mr. Speaker, the House received a batch of 46 amendments to its cannabis bill, a massive amount that shows that the government has to go back to the drawing board. Among those amendments, there is one that is crucial to Quebec and would specifically prevent Ottawa from infringing on the right of the provinces to regulate home cultivation. Enough is enough with Ottawa's need for control.
    The Liberals have so far been stubborn and dogmatic.
    Will they finally listen to reason and accept this rather essential change?
    Mr. Speaker, the current approach to cannabis is not working. It allows criminals to profit from cannabis and has not managed to keep it out of the hands of our children.
    However, our government is legalizing, regulating, and strictly controlling access to cannabis, and we are pleased that Bill C-45 was passed by the Senate last week. Our government is carefully examining the amendments made by the Senate and we will come back with a response later this week.

International Trade

    Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister climbed into a truck cab in Chicoutimi to make a stump-like speech that included a promise to protect supply management in NAFTA negotiations.
    I would like to remind the government that, on September 26, the House adopted a unanimous motion to fully preserve supply management.
    Will the government heed the unanimous will of the House of Commons, or will it break its promises as it did with CETA and the TPP?
    Mr. Speaker, our government is fully committed to protecting the supply management system. Our Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture, the 41 Quebec MPs, and our entire caucus believe in the supply management system, and we will protect it. Ours is the party that created the supply management system, and we will protect it.

[English]

Indigenous Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, qujannamiik uqaqti. My question is for the Minister of Indigenous Services.
    Last week, I asked the Prime Minister a question regarding the recent declaration of crisis by two communities in my riding, declarations that stem from a lack of mental health services and an increase in suicide attempts.
    Although I appreciate the answer provided, the funding mentioned is not solely intended for mental health support. Like other existing funding, it fails to address the need. These crises demonstrate that.
    Will the minister commit to funding the mental health service and support needed by Nunavummiut?
    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reassure the member for Nunavut that our budgets, both in 2017 and in 2018, had significant investments for mental wellness and addictions treatment. In fact, this year alone, for Nunavut, we have investments of $8.4 million for mental health priorities in that territory.
    As the member may know, the funding allocations are determined in partnership with organizations like Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. We are also happy, of course, to work with the Government of Nunavut to make sure that we have appropriate investments. We will continue to work with all partners, and look forward to the opportunity to working with the member himself.

[Translation]

Presence in Gallery

     For people across the country, Canadian Armed Forces Day is an opportunity to honour the sacrifices that our military personnel make on our behalf.

[English]

    It is my pleasure to draw to the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of six members of the Canadian Forces who are taking part in Canadian Armed Forces Day today: Colonel Colleen Forestier, Sergeant Mena Ghattas, Sergeant Shirley Jardine, Leading Seaman Philippe Mercier-Provencher, Corporal Matthew Tate, and Ranger Judy Morris.
    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

  (1510)  

Canada-U.S. Trade

    Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be seeking the House's consent for a motion.
    At this difficult moment in our history with our U.S. neighbours, Canadians need to know that all sides of the House stand united as one.
    Mr. Speaker, there have been talks amongst the parties and I believe if you seek it, you will find consent for the following motion. I move:
     That the House:
(a) recognize the importance of Canada's long-standing, mutually beneficial trading relationship with the United States of America;
(b) stand with Canadian workers in communities that directly or indirectly depend on this trading relationship;
(c) strongly oppose the illegitimate tariffs imposed by the U.S. government against Canadian steel and aluminum workers;
(d) stand in solidarity with the Government of Canada in its decision to impose retaliatory tariffs;
(e) remain united in support of Canadian farmers and supply management, which is integral for dairy, chicken, turkey, and egg farming;
(f) reject disparaging ad hominem statements by U.S. officials which do a disservice to bilateral relations and work against efforts to resolve this trade dispute.
    Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    (Motion agreed to)


GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Government Orders]

[Translation]

Impact Assessment Act

    It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-69.
    The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 15 to 23, 28 to 61, 100 to 103, 105 to 147, 149 to 205, 208 to 214, and 216.
    A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 11.

  (1520)  

[English]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 739)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Albas
Albrecht
Allison
Barlow
Benzen
Bergen
Bernier
Berthold
Bezan
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Boucher
Brassard
Carrie
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cooper
Deltell
Diotte
Doherty
Dreeshen
Eglinski
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Finley
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Gourde
Harder
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kent
Kmiec
Kusie
Lake
Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Leitch
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Lukiwski
MacKenzie
Maguire
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
Motz
Nater
Nicholson
O'Toole
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Saroya
Schmale
Shields
Shipley
Sopuck
Sorenson
Strahl
Stubbs
Sweet
Tilson
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Viersen
Wagantall
Warawa
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Wong
Yurdiga

Total: -- 80

NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Alleslev
Amos
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ayoub
Badawey
Bagnell
Bains
Barsalou-Duval
Baylis
Beaulieu
Beech
Bennett
Benson
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blaney (North Island—Powell River)
Boissonnault
Bossio
Boudrias
Boutin-Sweet
Bratina
Breton
Brison
Brosseau
Caesar-Chavannes
Cannings
Carr
Casey (Cumberland—Colchester)
Casey (Charlottetown)
Chagger
Champagne
Chen
Choquette
Christopherson
Cormier
Cullen
Cuzner
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeCourcey
Dhillon
Drouin
Dubé
Dubourg
Duguid
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona)
Dusseault
Duvall
Dzerowicz
Easter
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Erskine-Smith
Eyking
Eyolfson
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser (West Nova)
Fraser (Central Nova)
Fuhr
Garneau
Garrison
Gerretsen
Goldsmith-Jones
Goodale
Gould
Graham
Grewal
Hajdu
Hardcastle
Hardie
Harvey
Hébert
Hehr
Hogg
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Johns
Jolibois
Jowhari
Kang
Khalid
Khera
Kwan
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation)
Laverdière
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lefebvre
Leslie
Levitt
Lightbound
Lockhart
Longfield
Ludwig
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malcolmson
Maloney
Marcil
Masse (Windsor West)
Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia)
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McCrimmon
McGuinty
McKay
McKenna
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod (Northwest Territories)
Mendès
Mendicino
Mihychuk
Monsef
Moore
Morneau
Murray
Nantel
Nassif
Nault
Ng
O'Connell
Oliphant
Oliver
O'Regan
Ouellette
Paradis
Pauzé
Peschisolido
Peterson
Petitpas Taylor
Philpott
Picard
Plamondon
Poissant
Quach
Qualtrough
Ramsey
Rankin
Ratansi
Rioux
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Rudd
Ruimy
Rusnak
Sahota
Saini
Sajjan
Samson
Sangha
Sansoucy
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Schulte
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sikand
Simms
Sorbara
Spengemann
Ste-Marie
Stetski
Tabbara
Tan
Tassi
Thériault
Tootoo
Vandenbeld
Vaughan
Virani
Weir
Whalen
Wilkinson
Wilson-Raybould
Wrzesnewskyj
Yip
Young

Total: -- 211

PAIRED

Members

Duclos
Gill

Total: -- 2

    I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 15 to 23, 28 to 61, 100 to 103, 105 to 147, 149 to 205, 208 to 214, and 216 defeated.

[Translation]

    The next question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 25.
    The hon. Chief Government Whip on a point of order.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will vote no.
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.
    Mr. Speaker, the members of Québec Debout agree to apply the vote and will vote in favour of the motion.
    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I vote yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes on the Green Party amendment.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and I will be voting no.
    Mr. Speaker, I do agree to apply the vote and I will be voting no.
    Do members agree to proceed in this manner?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

  (1525)  

[Translation]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 740)

YEAS

Members

Angus
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Benson
Blaikie
Blaney (North Island—Powell River)
Boudrias
Boutin-Sweet
Brosseau
Cannings
Choquette
Christopherson
Cullen
Davies
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona)
Dusseault
Duvall
Fortin
Garrison
Hardcastle
Hughes
Johns
Jolibois
Kwan
Laverdière
MacGregor
Malcolmson
Marcil
Masse (Windsor West)
Mathyssen
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Moore
Nantel
Pauzé
Plamondon
Quach
Ramsey
Rankin
Sansoucy
Ste-Marie
Stetski
Thériault
Weir

Total: -- 44

NAYS

Members

Aboultaif
Albas
Albrecht
Aldag
Alghabra
Alleslev
Allison
Amos
Anandasangaree
Arseneault
Arya
Ayoub
Badawey
Bagnell
Bains
Barlow
Baylis
Beech
Bennett
Benzen
Bergen
Bernier
Berthold
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Boissonnault
Bossio
Boucher
Brassard
Bratina
Breton
Brison
Caesar-Chavannes
Carr
Carrie
Casey (Cumberland—Colchester)
Casey (Charlottetown)
Chagger
Champagne
Chen
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cooper
Cormier
Cuzner
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeCourcey
Deltell
Dhillon
Diotte
Doherty
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duguid
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dzerowicz
Easter
Eglinski
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Erskine-Smith
Eyking
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Fillmore
Finley
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser (West Nova)
Fraser (Central Nova)
Fuhr
Gallant
Garneau
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gladu
Goldsmith-Jones
Goodale
Gould
Gourde
Graham
Grewal
Hajdu
Harder
Hardie
Harvey
Hébert
Hehr
Hoback
Hogg
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Jeneroux
Jowhari
Kang
Kelly
Kent
Khalid
Khera
Kmiec
Kusie
Lake
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation)
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lefebvre
Leitch
Leslie
Levitt
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Lockhart
Longfield
Ludwig
Lukiwski
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacKenzie
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia)
May (Cambridge)
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McCrimmon
McGuinty
McKay
McKenna
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
McLeod (Northwest Territories)
Mendès
Mendicino
Mihychuk
Monsef
Morneau
Motz
Murray
Nassif
Nater
Nault
Ng
Nicholson
O'Connell
Oliphant
Oliver
O'Regan
O'Toole
Ouellette
Paradis
Paul-Hus
Peschisolido
Peterson
Petitpas Taylor
Philpott
Picard
Poilievre
Poissant
Qualtrough
Ratansi
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Rioux
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Rudd
Ruimy
Rusnak
Sahota
Saini
Sajjan
Samson
Sangha
Sarai
Saroya
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Schmale
Schulte
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sikand
Simms
Sopuck
Sorbara
Sorenson
Spengemann
Strahl
Stubbs
Sweet
Tabbara
Tan
Tassi
Tilson
Tootoo
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vandenbeld
Vaughan
Viersen
Virani
Wagantall
Warawa
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Whalen
Wilkinson
Wilson-Raybould
Wong
Wrzesnewskyj
Yip
Young
Yurdiga

Total: -- 247

PAIRED

Members

Duclos
Gill

Total: -- 2

    I declare Motion No. 3 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 25 defeated.

[English]

    The question is on Motion No. 4. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 9, 10, 12, and 13.

  (1530)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 741)

YEAS

Members

Angus
Beaulieu
Benson
Blaikie
Blaney (North Island—Powell River)
Boudrias
Boutin-Sweet
Brosseau
Cannings
Caron
Choquette
Christopherson
Cullen
Davies
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona)
Dusseault
Duvall
Fortin
Garrison
Hardcastle
Hughes
Johns
Jolibois
Kwan
Laverdière
MacGregor
Malcolmson
Marcil
Masse (Windsor West)
Mathyssen
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Moore
Nantel
Pauzé
Plamondon
Quach
Ramsey
Rankin
Sansoucy
Ste-Marie
Stetski
Thériault
Weir

Total: -- 44

NAYS

Members

Aboultaif
Albas
Albrecht
Aldag
Alghabra
Alleslev
Allison
Amos
Anandasangaree
Arseneault
Arya
Ayoub
Badawey
Bagnell
Bains
Barlow
Baylis
Beech
Bennett
Benzen
Bergen
Bernier
Berthold
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Boissonnault
Bossio
Boucher
Brassard
Bratina
Breton
Brison
Caesar-Chavannes
Carr
Carrie
Casey (Cumberland—Colchester)
Casey (Charlottetown)
Chagger
Champagne
Chen
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cooper
Cormier
Cuzner
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeCourcey
Deltell
Dhillon
Diotte
Doherty
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duguid
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dzerowicz
Easter
Eglinski
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Erskine-Smith
Eyking
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Fillmore
Finley
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser (West Nova)
Fraser (Central Nova)
Fuhr
Gallant
Garneau
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gladu
Goldsmith-Jones
Goodale
Gould
Gourde
Graham
Grewal
Hajdu
Harder
Hardie
Harvey
Hébert
Hehr
Hoback
Hogg
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Jeneroux
Jowhari
Kang
Kelly
Kent
Khalid
Khera
Kmiec
Kusie
Lake
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation)
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lefebvre
Leitch
Leslie
Levitt
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Lockhart
Longfield
Ludwig
Lukiwski
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacKenzie
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia)
May (Cambridge)
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McCrimmon
McGuinty
McKay
McKenna
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
McLeod (Northwest Territories)
Mendès
Mendicino
Mihychuk
Monsef
Morneau
Motz
Murray
Nassif
Nater
Nault
Ng
Nicholson
O'Connell
Oliphant
Oliver
O'Regan
O'Toole
Ouellette
Paradis
Paul-Hus
Peschisolido
Peterson
Petitpas Taylor
Philpott
Picard
Poilievre
Poissant
Qualtrough
Ratansi
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Rioux
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Rudd
Ruimy
Rusnak
Sahota
Saini
Sajjan
Samson
Sangha
Sarai
Saroya
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Schmale
Schulte
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sikand
Simms
Sopuck
Sorbara
Sorenson
Spengemann
Strahl
Stubbs
Sweet
Tabbara
Tan
Tassi
Tilson
Tootoo
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vandenbeld
Vaughan
Viersen
Virani
Wagantall
Warawa
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Whalen
Wilkinson
Wilson-Raybould
Wong
Wrzesnewskyj
Yip
Young
Yurdiga

Total: -- 247

PAIRED

Members

Duclos
Gill

Total: -- 2

    I declare Motion No. 4 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 9, 10, 12, and 13 defeated.

[Translation]

    The question is on Motion No. 5. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 8 and 148.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, and Conservatives will be voting no.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.
    Mr. Speaker, Québec Debout agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

  (1535)  

    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I agree, and vote yes.
    Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply, and is voting yes.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply, and will be voting no.

[Translation]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 742)

YEAS

Members

Angus
Beaulieu
Benson
Blaikie
Blaney (North Island—Powell River)
Boudrias
Boutin-Sweet
Brosseau
Cannings
Caron
Choquette
Christopherson
Cullen
Davies
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona)
Dusseault
Duvall
Fortin
Garrison
Hardcastle
Hughes
Johns
Jolibois
Kwan
Laverdière
MacGregor
Malcolmson
Marcil
Masse (Windsor West)
Mathyssen
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Moore
Nantel
Pauzé
Plamondon
Quach
Ramsey
Rankin
Sansoucy
Ste-Marie
Stetski
Thériault
Weir

Total: -- 44

NAYS

Members

Aboultaif
Albas
Albrecht
Aldag
Alghabra
Alleslev
Allison
Amos
Anandasangaree
Arseneault
Arya
Ayoub
Badawey
Bagnell
Bains
Barlow
Baylis
Beech
Bennett
Benzen
Bergen
Bernier
Berthold
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Boissonnault
Bossio
Boucher
Brassard
Bratina
Breton
Brison
Caesar-Chavannes
Carr
Carrie
Casey (Cumberland—Colchester)
Casey (Charlottetown)
Chagger
Champagne
Chen
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cooper
Cormier
Cuzner
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeCourcey
Deltell
Dhillon
Diotte
Doherty
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duguid
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dzerowicz
Easter
Eglinski
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Erskine-Smith
Eyking
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Fillmore
Finley
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser (West Nova)
Fraser (Central Nova)
Fuhr
Gallant
Garneau
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gladu
Goldsmith-Jones
Goodale
Gould
Gourde
Graham
Grewal
Hajdu
Harder
Hardie
Harvey
Hébert
Hehr
Hoback
Hogg
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Jeneroux
Jowhari
Kang
Kelly
Kent
Khalid
Khera
Kmiec
Kusie
Lake
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation)
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lefebvre
Leitch
Leslie
Levitt
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Lockhart
Longfield
Ludwig
Lukiwski
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacKenzie
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia)
May (Cambridge)
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McCrimmon
McGuinty
McKay
McKenna
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
McLeod (Northwest Territories)
Mendès
Mendicino
Mihychuk
Monsef
Morneau
Motz
Murray
Nassif
Nater
Nault
Ng
Nicholson
O'Connell
Oliphant
Oliver
O'Regan
O'Toole
Ouellette
Paradis
Paul-Hus
Peschisolido
Peterson
Petitpas Taylor
Philpott
Picard
Poilievre
Poissant
Qualtrough
Ratansi
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Rioux
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Rudd
Ruimy
Rusnak
Sahota
Saini
Sajjan
Samson
Sangha
Sarai
Saroya
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Schmale
Schulte
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sikand
Simms
Sopuck
Sorbara
Sorenson
Spengemann
Strahl
Stubbs
Sweet
Tabbara
Tan
Tassi
Tilson
Tootoo
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vandenbeld
Vaughan
Viersen
Virani
Wagantall
Warawa
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Whalen
Wilkinson
Wilson-Raybould
Wong
Wrzesnewskyj
Yip
Young
Yurdiga

Total: -- 247

PAIRED

Members

Duclos
Gill

Total: -- 2

    I declare Motion No. 5 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 8 and 148 defeated.

[English]

    The next question is on Motion No. 11. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 26 and 27.
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it, you would find agreement to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, and the Conservatives will vote no.
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.
    Mr. Speaker, Québec Debout agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.
    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I agree and vote yes.
    Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and votes yes for important amendments.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Translation]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 743)

YEAS

Members

Angus
Beaulieu
Benson
Blaikie
Blaney (North Island—Powell River)
Boudrias
Boutin-Sweet
Brosseau
Cannings
Caron
Choquette
Christopherson
Cullen
Davies
Dubé
Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona)
Dusseault
Duvall
Fortin
Garrison
Hardcastle
Hughes
Johns
Jolibois
Kwan
Laverdière
MacGregor
Malcolmson
Marcil
Masse (Windsor West)
Mathyssen
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Moore
Nantel
Pauzé
Plamondon
Quach
Ramsey
Rankin
Sansoucy
Ste-Marie
Stetski
Thériault
Weir

Total: -- 44

NAYS

Members

Aboultaif
Albas
Albrecht
Aldag
Alghabra
Alleslev
Allison
Amos
Anandasangaree
Arseneault
Arya
Ayoub
Badawey
Bagnell
Bains
Barlow
Baylis
Beech
Bennett
Benzen
Bergen
Bernier
Berthold
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Boissonnault
Bossio
Boucher
Brassard
Bratina
Breton
Brison
Caesar-Chavannes
Carr
Carrie
Casey (Cumberland—Colchester)
Casey (Charlottetown)
Chagger
Champagne
Chen
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cooper
Cormier
Cuzner
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeCourcey
Deltell
Dhillon
Diotte
Doherty
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duguid
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Dzerowicz
Easter
Eglinski
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Erskine-Smith
Eyking
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Fillmore
Finley
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser (West Nova)
Fraser (Central Nova)
Fuhr
Gallant
Garneau
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gladu
Goldsmith-Jones
Goodale
Gould
Gourde
Graham
Grewal
Hajdu
Harder
Hardie
Harvey
Hébert
Hehr
Hoback
Hogg
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Jeneroux
Jowhari
Kang
Kelly
Kent
Khalid
Khera
Kmiec
Kusie
Lake
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation)
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lefebvre
Leitch
Leslie
Levitt
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Lockhart
Longfield
Ludwig
Lukiwski
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacKenzie
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia)
May (Cambridge)
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McCrimmon
McGuinty
McKay
McKenna
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
McLeod (Northwest Territories)
Mendès
Mendicino
Mihychuk
Monsef
Morneau
Motz
Murray
Nassif
Nater
Nault
Ng
Nicholson
O'Connell
Oliphant
Oliver
O'Regan
O'Toole
Ouellette
Paradis
Paul-Hus
Peschisolido
Peterson
Petitpas Taylor
Philpott
Picard
Poilievre
Poissant
Qualtrough
Ratansi
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Rioux
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Rudd
Ruimy
Rusnak
Sahota
Saini
Sajjan
Samson
Sangha
Sarai
Saroya
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Schmale
Schulte
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sikand
Simms
Sopuck
Sorbara
Sorenson
Spengemann
Strahl
Stubbs
Sweet
Tabbara
Tan
Tassi
Tilson
Tootoo
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vandenbeld
Vaughan
Viersen
Virani
Wagantall
Warawa
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Whalen
Wilkinson
Wilson-Raybould
Wong
Wrzesnewskyj
Yip
Young
Yurdiga

Total: -- 247

PAIRED

Members

Duclos
Gill

Total: -- 2

    I declare Motion No. 11 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 26 and 27 defeated.

[English]

    The question is on Motion No. 62. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 63, 64, 66 to 79, 81 to 99, 104, 206, 207, and 215.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with Conservatives voting yes.
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply and will vote no this time.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the members of Québec Debout agree to apply the vote, but we will vote no.
    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote no.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and will vote no.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

  (1540)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 62, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 744)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Albas
Albrecht
Allison
Barlow
Benzen
Bergen
Bernier
Berthold
Bezan
Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis)
Block
Boucher
Brassard
Carrie
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Cooper
Deltell
Diotte
Doherty
Dreeshen
Eglinski
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Finley
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Gourde
Harder
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kent
Kmiec
Kusie
Lake
Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Leitch
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Lukiwski
MacKenzie
Maguire
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo)
Motz
Nater
Nicholson
O'Toole
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
Rayes
Reid
Rempel
Saroya
Schmale
Shields
Shipley
Sopuck
Sorenson
Strahl
Stubbs
Sweet
Tilson
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Viersen
Wagantall
Warawa
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Wong
Yurdiga

Total: -- 80

NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Alleslev
Amos
Anandasangaree
Angus