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

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




Friday, February 10, 2023

Emblem of the House of Commons

House of Commons Debates

Volume 151
No. 158


Friday, February 10, 2023

Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota

    The House met at 10 a.m.


Government Orders

[Government Orders]



Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

    The House resumed from December 12, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
    Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to legislation that reinforces something that has been discussed and debated in the House now for quite a while, two political regimes out there and the impact they are having on the world today.
    We hear a great deal from members of the opposition talking about the issue of inflation. Looking around the world at the current level of inflation rates, I often stand and talk about the reality of what is happening in the world that, in part, is causing inflation to occur, such as the two regimes I would like to spend a bit of time talking about, and why this legislation is before us today.
    The war in Ukraine has caused so much hardship in many different ways. There are Ukrainian communities not only in Ukraine but around the world, and I believe that if Canada is not second it might be third behind the United States with respect to the size of our Ukrainian heritage community. I say that because, typically, whatever takes place in Ukraine, whether today or back in 2014 at the Maidan or Independence Square, or the independence of Ukraine back in the early 1990s, the people of Canada genuinely care. That should not surprise anyone when we look at the demographics of Canada. Over 1.3 million people of Ukrainian heritage call Canada home.
     It is not just people of Ukrainian heritage who have made that connection, but in good part it is the neighbours, the working environment and our educational institutions, where we find a great deal of discussion concerning Ukraine. I am much more familiar with what is happening in Ukraine than I am, I must admit, with Iran, and I want to be able to amplify that. I know there are so many people in my home province, and in fact in Winnipeg, who are following the war in Ukraine, or the war that is taking place in Europe. This weekend I will be hosting a special lunch at one of our local Ukrainian churches. There is no doubt that the number one issue I will be addressing Sunday afternoon is the illegal war taking place in Ukraine.
    I have asked for some numbers, and based on the community numbers provided to me, we have seen well over 12,000 people, and someone suggested as high as 15,000 people, displaced from Ukraine who are now living in Manitoba. When we look at the numbers and we drive around Winnipeg or the rural communities, whether Dauphin or even the community of Gimli, what we see is substantial support for Ukraine in the form of Ukrainian flags being flown in office and home windows. I say this because of what has taken place over the last year with respect to how the Ukrainian community, not just in Ukraine, Canada and the United States but around the world, has really come together in solidarity. The friends of Ukraine, people who are not necessarily of Ukrainian heritage, recognize that, like Canada and its allied countries, they need to be there for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way.


    I remember standing up and speaking in the House, where I was talking about how we should be providing support for Ukraine. It was maybe just over a year ago. The Prime Minister had indicated to me not to forget lethal weapons. It is important that the types of supports we are putting in place for Ukraine, in working with allied countries, are really making a difference. A part of that support speaks directly to the legislation we have today. The legislation deals with one aspect of the things we are doing to show the world that Canada is behind Ukraine. That is the issue of sanctions.
    When the war broke out in Ukraine, there were many demands put on the Government of Canada. We did not necessarily have to hear them, as we had ministers taking up their responsibilities and already taking action. However, we literally had thousands of people throughout the country stand up in rallies saying, “What can we do as a nation to protect the interests of Ukraine?” There were ideas such as humanitarian aid. I remember we said we would match Canadians' contributions to humanitarian aid and I believe it was a $12-million commitment that we made, though I might be out by a bit. It was just a matter of weeks, if not days, that the cap was hit, so we had to expand that cap because Canadians wanted to see humanitarian aid.
    When it comes to the military, more than 35,000 Ukrainian soldiers have benefited from our Canadian Forces and the training we provided. We have provided all forms of ammunition and other types of supports. Very recently, Ukraine has received one of our tanks, a Leopard tank I believe. Members will find that we are providing multiple numbers of many different things.
     The point of this is to recognize our support, whether it is lethal weapons, humanitarian aid or providing leadership with our allied countries so there would be a united front in taking on Russia. One of the areas in which Canada has made significant headway is on the sanctions. It is having an impact. Canada has taken a very strong approach in regard to a multitude of tools we can use in order to clearly indicate that there will be consequences for what is happening in Europe with this unprovoked, inhumane war that Russia commenced on Ukraine a year ago.


    The people of Russia are, in fact, starting to see the consequences of economic sanctions that have been put on to the country and of sanctions for the regime itself. Canada will continue to be there for Ukraine in a time of need in regard to holding Russia accountable. Banning close associates and key supporters of the Putin regime, including those responsible for Russia's unprovoked aggression in Ukraine, from entering our country is one of the many ways we are holding Russia accountable for its crimes. We will continue to exercise all options to uphold freedom and democracy.
    When we look at Bill S-8, we see that there are amendments being proposed that are needed to align Canada's sanctions and inadmissibility frameworks to ensure that those who are responsible for Russia's aggression, and already subjected to sanctions, would be inadmissible to Canada.
    Individuals and entities that have been sanctioned for their support of terrorism and systemic and gross human rights violations are inadmissible to Canada. The changes we would be putting in place would allow the Canada Border Services Agency to deny entry to, and ultimately remove, sanctioned individuals, and would allow Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials to deny visas. Once in force, these amendments to the IRPA would apply to all foreign nationals subject to sanctions by Canada, as well as to any accompanying family members.
    We can take a look at many of the actions throughout this war that are taking place today or have taken place in the last 10 or 11 months in Ukraine. We hear about human rights violations. Just yesterday we were talking about the notwithstanding clause in the House, and highlighted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian values. If we were to apply Canadian values to what is taking place in Ukraine, it is very obvious. We could show that in a classroom of grade 1 students. We could sit down and explain it to a child, and the child would understand that very clearly. That is how blatant, in Ukraine in a time of war, the types of actions that Russia has taken are. We can cite specific examples of things, from mass murder to rape and all forms of seduction and torture that are taking place in Ukraine, so it is fairly easy to put forward that particular argument.
     I can change channels and talk about Iran and the regime in Iran, because even though I spend most of my time talking about Ukraine, the legislation would also apply to the regime in Iran. One can only imagine, in terms of what it is that, in particular, women today have to put up with in regard to what is taking place in the Iranian regime. Again, Canada will continue to hold the Iranian regime to account for its crimes and human rights abuses.


    We stand in solidarity with the women and demonstrators across Iran who are advocating for their rights and freedoms. That is why we are implementing the strongest sanctions in the world, which include banning senior IRGC operatives from Canada. The government continues to be unwavering in its commitment to keep Canadians safe by taking all appropriate actions to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world. We have a moral responsibility to hold the Iranian regime to account, and we will do just that.
    The restrictions on women are very upsetting. I pointed out what is taking place in Ukraine, which can be explained quite easily to virtually anyone who wants to listen. The Iranian situation has been taking place for a while. It has been very difficult in certain aspects for women, and it is gender based. The economic and social hardships that they have had to overcome are because they were born female versus male.
    On the issue of human rights and Canadian values, in certain areas of the world, we all need to be concerned about advocating in a stronger and more aggressive way for the recognition of women and their proper place in world society, and there is much work that needs to be done. Some countries, sadly, are so extreme in their behaviour that it is completely unacceptable, especially with respect to discrimination against women. There are countries that will sponsor terrorism to invoke the element of fear by killing randomly and by suppressing the rights and freedoms of their own populations.
     We have a great deal of debate inside this chamber about the issue of human rights and what we can do. If we were to take substantial, tangible action to deal with those hours of debate we have had over the years on this issue it would be to support this piece of legislation.
    The legislation before us would send a very clear message, whether to Russia, Iran or other countries that do not share the types of values of Canada has. We have tools we can use to ensure we are promoting our values. That is what Bill S-8 is. It is about ensuring that we have sanctions and that we could prevent people from entering Canada or from ever being in Canada. It would also enable us to get rid of individuals here in Canada who have been associated with this issue in a direct way.
    I encourage all members to support this legislation. It would be a wonderful message to send on this issue to see this legislation pass soon.


    Madam Speaker, on this particular piece of legislation, the member will find there are many Conservatives who are in agreement that aligning our sanctions regime with our inadmissibility criteria is a very good idea. It would make sure that we keep people out who have been found to be part of regimes that are violating people's human rights or that do not have the best interests of Canada in mind.
    The member also mentioned that we have the strongest sanctions in the world. That is actually a laughable thing to say. On the question of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Poland, for example, has completely banned the import of Russian coal into the country. It has found a wide range of individuals inadmissible just simply for the promotion of the Russian Federation's positions and its symbols. It took months for the government to take Russia Today off the airwaves in Canada and off the public requirements to have it on our airwaves. It is still available online. That was more of a commentary on the member's speech.
    When I do rise to speak on this, members will find there is agreement. We do not have the strongest sanctions in the world. The Republic of Poland proves it.
    Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member said. I do not necessarily agree with his conclusion.
    Let us look at it from the perspective of what the government brought forward. There are financial sanctions banning certain products. There are some things still flowing through Russia. Fertilizer is something that Conservatives argue that we should not even put an extra tariff on. In the end, the sanctions take many different forms.
    With this legislation, we would ensure that a very powerful message would be sent about who could come to Canada. The message, very simply, would be that if someone is part of the regime causing hardship and human rights violations, we do not want them in Canada. I see that as a—
    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.
    Madam Speaker, I am quite shocked that the member could speak for 20 minutes about how effective the sanctions regime when he knows very well that we have 1,600 people on our sanctions regime. We have no transparency and have no enforcement. We have seized $121 million over six months. The entire Russian Federation could be put on the sanctions list, but if they are not going to enforce them they do not matter.
    Madam Speaker, part of it is ensuring we have the appropriate tools in place. That is one of the nice things about the legislation. That would be one of the tools on the tool belt that will enable us to enforce the sanctions. We are enabling Canada border control and immigration to be able to deal with some of the sanctions.
    The member is wrong to try to give the impression that there is no enforcement. There is enforcement that is in place. There is a real impact. To say that there is nothing is just not true. Canada continues to work with our allied countries. The sanctions that are being put in place, not only by Canada but also by like-minded countries around the world, are having a real, tangible impact on Russia.


    Madam Speaker, under the Special Economic Measures Act, Canada sanctioned over 1,200 individuals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus due to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. In support of women's rights in Iran, I think Canada has imposed sanctions on over 215 individuals and entities in Iran.
    Can the government confirm that under the present legislation, Bill S-8, that the members of the sanctioned entities can also be found inadmissible? Secondly, if the sanctioned individuals are already in Canada, can they be removed under this legislation?
    Madam Speaker, from my understanding of the legislation, the member is quite correct. This legislation is a wonderful tool that would enable Canada to support that enforcement. My New Democrat colleague wants to ensure enforcement, and this goes a long way in supporting that.
    We want people to know that there is inappropriate, inhumane behaviour taking place, and that sort of behaviour is not acceptable. We do not want individuals of that nature coming to Canada and, for those who are already in Canada, it would enable us to get them out of Canada.
    Madam Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona raises a good point that the government is woefully lacking an enforcement regime for some of the measures that are undertaken with regard to sanctions. This bill, Bill S-8, would put in place a framework to be able to reject permanent residence, citizenship or refugee applications on the basis of those who are on a sanctions list.
    I am wondering if my colleague opposite can confirm that no persons on a sanctions list have applied for any of these forms of immigration to Canada or have made safe passage to Canada already.
    Madam Speaker, we believe there are individuals in Canada that this legislation, if and when passed, would have an impact on. If someone has gone online to start the process of an application to come to Canada for a nephew, a niece or whoever it may be, it is hard to give a conclusive answer to what the member is proposing.
    The legislation, in principle, would have a very positive impact in ensuring that we could prevent people on the sanctions list from being able to come into Canada. I have confidence, arguably, probably more confidence than the Conservative Party does, in our civil service, and believe that it understands the sanctions list and will not let people slip through.
    Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite, if I understood correctly, just confirmed that there are individuals or extended family members in Canada who perhaps might be on the sanctions regime. How many people does that apply to? How many people who are sanctioned by Canada, that sanctions would apply to, have been allowed into Canada by the government through our current immigration policies?
    Madam Speaker, I have no idea how many Stephen Harper let in. The member is trying to turn this into a political issue by asking if there could be people in Canada. Could the member say she can guarantee there are no sanctioned people that Stephen Harper ever let in? From my perspective, it is a ridiculous question.
    With the legislation we are passing, ultimately, there could be individuals or their family members who are sanctioned, but who came to Canada two years ago before the sanctions were put in place. I suspect there might even be people who Stephen Harper and the former Conservative government let in.
    This does not have to be as political as the member is trying to make it. We would be making a very strong statement to the world by bringing forward this legislation, and I hope that the Conservative Party would want to pass it.


    Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could inform us how this bill, Bill S-8, might impact someone like Jihadi Jack. He is a British terrorist who fought with ISIS in Syria and said he would be happy for martyrdom by cutting off people's heads, including his friend's, for being in the British military. Britain cut off his citizenship, yet we are putting out the doormat for him.
    Maybe the member could comment on that.
    Madam Speaker, I am very reluctant to start providing comments on individuals on whom I do not have the full story.
     I do not support any terrorist or anyone who threatens the sort of violence that the member referred to. I do not believe that any member of the Liberal caucus or the House of Commons who supports any type of terrorist being in Canada. That is why we have a system through CSIS, through Canada border control and the many other agencies that are well staffed by professional civil servants to protect Canadian society.
    This legislation is about protecting Canadian society and about ensuring we have sanctions against regimes like Russia and Iran because of the barbaric things they are doing.
    Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill. I know members often forget to indicate this and it causes a bit of consternation at the table, so I wanted to mention that off the top.
    Just so my constituents know what the debate is about, we are talking about Bill S-8, which would amend paragraph 35.1(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is affectionately known by many of us as IRPA, because it is just easier to use the acronym, as with everything in government.
    This bill would basically change the grounds for inadmissibility to Canada under IRPA to match with our sanctions list. Part of the debate over the last 18 months has been the government having to catch up over time and sanction new people in order to match sanctions to people we do not want to let in as we list new organizations, new people and new events that happen all over the world.
    Many of us were gripped by the protests taking place by women standing up for their rights in Iran after the death of Jina Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish woman whose hometown was Saqqez, if I'm pronouncing it correctly. I am sure my Kurdish friends will correct me by email very soon. She was visiting Tehran, and she was picked up by the morality police. I am sure they noticed on her identity papers that she was not from Tehran and quickly figured out she was Kurdish. They beat her in custody, and she died a few days later. This sparked mass protests in Iran.
    Then the government decided to start sanctioning individual bits and pieces of the regime in order to show it was on the side of the protesters. Many Iranians in Canada were asking why the government was still letting in members of the regime; people who have profited from the regime; people who are close to the regime, such as wives or girlfriends; or people close to the regime coming here to study.
    I was getting videos and pictures of people landing at the Toronto Pearson Airport who were known members of the regime. Of course I would always tell them, “We don't know what you know, and you should inform the RCMP”. When they would go to the RCMP, they would usually be told the individuals or organizations were not sanctioned and that they had not been found inadmissible to Canada.
    This bill would partially close that hole, which many of us and the worried members of our communities have called for in the past. We also know that if we do not enforce the sanctions or inadmissibility grounds, then it does not matter how many people we put on the list. We need a government that has the will to act and actually impose the sanctions on individuals and enforce them through information gathering and information sharing in order to identify these people in Canada.
    I will draw the attention of the House to one specific person, and this is one I hear about quite often when I go to Iranian protests and rallies in Canada. Morteza Talaei is a former police chief of Tehran. He was the police chief when Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian Canadian and Montrealer, was arrested. She was beaten and died in custody.
    The fact that we do not enforce our sanctions is one of the next debates we will have after this. When this piece of legislation hopefully makes it to committee and beyond and actually passes into law, then government can find the time to enforce it. Not only can the government devote resources to it, but it can also give political direction to the CBSA to detain and deport these people.
    I had an Order Paper question given back to me just a few months ago that indicated the government was only following through on half its deportation orders for people who had already been found inadmissible to Canada. It is a shocking number that has gone way down since the pandemic, and that is a very worrying sign to me.
    I want to cover what is happening in Iran, speak a little about the People's Republic of China and then cover the Russian Federation and its war of aggression on Ukraine. Those are the three major countries many of us think of when we think of our sanctions regime and the people we would like to be found inadmissible to Canada.
    On Iran, I have been a big supporter of the protests. There are individual case files that have come to my constituency office that I have tried to advocate for, both directly with the Minister of Immigration and in working with members from both sides of the House.
    I want to mention that I have politically sponsored Mohammad Amin Akhlaghi, who was sentenced to death by the regime simply for the act of peacefully protesting. I also sponsored Amir Mohammad Jafari, who was arrested at school when he was 17 years old. He was taken to prison, tortured and then sentenced to 25 years in jail, followed by exile after his prison sentence was complete. This was for the crime of corruption on earth, which is a broad claim made against many individuals in Iran.


    Many of these individuals' family members have contacted me. It is just a broad-based accusation. They can do anything they want. This is through IRGC-controlled courts and a justice system where there is no justice.
    Many organizations have been sanctioned. We have sanctioned different bits of the regime. However, in many cases, the fact that we are politically sponsoring them ensures their protection. It shows the Iranian regime that we are looking at individual cases. I track them every few days. I ask my staff, and I look them up to make sure that nothing has happened to them.
    The government needs to be doing more. The little bit that we found in Bill S-8 is not, I think, quite enough just yet. The government needs to be defining some people as inadmissible and following up on cases like those of Morteza Talaei and other Iranian nationals who have come to Canada on different visas, who may have overstayed here and who are still here. They should have their visas reviewed as well. I am hoping that this legislation will look after that.
    On the issue of the enforcement of sanctions, we had a New Democratic member stand up to correct the record when a member from one of the Winnipeg ridings was speaking on behalf of the government. However, our own shadow minister for international trade had an Order Paper question come back demonstrating that over the last however many years, at our border, the Canadian government has actually stopped zero dollars' worth of merchandise coming from the Xinjiang province in the People's Republic of China because of the use of slave labour.
    In comparison, America has actually stopped billions of dollars of merchandise at its border. It is not as though our markets are all that different. We buy many goods. Many companies are buying goods, such as T-shirts, socks and a lot of goods made of cotton.
    In Xinjiang, cotton happens to be one of the major products that is made with slave labour. Companies have to ensure that they have an ethical supply chain, but it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that the CBSA is directed to catch these products at the border. It is impossible that it is at zero dollars.
    The fact that we received that answer to an Order Paper question proves that the government is not doing enough. I am hoping that after Bill S-8 gets a fulsome debate here, in committee, at third reading and at the report stage, members will get the satisfaction of knowing that the government is actually going to follow through and enforce it.
    Lastly, on the Russian Federation, as I rose before to mention, we do not have the strongest sanctions in the world. Again, we have piecemeal sanctions of different bits of the regime.
    I have a Yiddish proverb, and it will come at the very end.
    We have sanctioned different parts of the Russian regime. In Bill S-8, there are references to the justice for Sergei Magnitsky act. It is a piece of legislation that I worked on at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs when we were debating it at the time.
    For those who do not know, Sergei Magnitsky was Bill Browder's lawyer in Russia. He uncovered a $200-million-plus case of tax fraud being committed.
    He was a fervent lawyer trying to get to the truth. For his trouble, he was arrested by the Russian regime. He was kept in confinement. He was beaten, tortured and murdered for the simple act of following up on tax law and making sure that the Russian taxpayer was getting their due.
    The highly corrupt regime run by President Putin and oligarchs in Russia cannot be trusted. They have now moved to a hot war. The started the war in 2014 but moved to a hot war last year. The piecemeal approach of sanctioning different parts of the regime has not worked. There are many European countries that have much stronger sanctions than we do.
    I gave the example of the Republic of Poland before. It has banned not only all coal imports but also the spread of Russian propaganda. It has prevented Russia Today from broadcasting and done many other things.
    Many eastern European countries have a much longer history of trying to resist what many of them will call their centuries-long oppressor. This is why many of them joined NATO after the Warsaw Pact fell apart.
    I have a Yiddish proverb, because I made myself a note to mention this: “If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans.” Yiddish is wonderful because it always tries to say something in a positive way but actually means something kind of insulting.
    In this particular case, months from now, we will be moving on to other government legislation. I am convinced that the government caucus will be accusing the Conservatives of holding up pieces of legislation because we want to debate things and bring forward issues and individual cases that we think are worth listening to in this chamber. We will be told that legislation needs to be rushed because it needs to be passed.
    I will think back to this moment when we debated Bill S-8, when we were debating legislation that many of us agreed with.
    It is the government House leader's job to schedule Government Orders and to make sure that the priorities of the government are passed. I note that this legislation started in the Senate instead of the House; so much for a House of sober second thought when we are the ones looking at government legislation from the Senate.


    Madam Speaker, I wanted to give the member the actual count, but I can assure him that Stephen Harper had dozens of pieces of legislation that came from the Senate into the House. It could be as high as 45. He might want to reflect on his last comment.
    Yes, we would like to see the legislation pass. The member mentions what he will refer to months from now. We only need to look at this week. It is Friday. There was a Tuesday opposition day and a Thursday opposition day; Wednesday is a short day. Monday was a government day, but the Conservatives brought in another opposition day by bringing in a concurrence motion; therefore, we were not allowed to debate government bills. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot play political games in the chamber and then say the government is not calling legislation. We would like to see this legislation pass.
    What are his thoughts on that?
    Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North likes to bring up what happened over eight years ago. That is over a decade ago. I do not think Netflix existed back then. What does what happened eight years ago have to do with Bill S-8 and the current legislation we are debating?
    The government passed a motion so it can do evening sittings, but it has chosen not to exercise it many times. This is a choice made by the government House leader. The choices the government makes indicate where its priorities are or maybe that it simply does not have a plan for what government legislation is absolutely critical. On this particular one, I am pleased with the contents of the legislation, but I am worried about enforcement. I am worried about whether Iranian nationals who came to Canada years ago, post-2015, would be able to stay here because there would be no enforcement of the provisions in Bill S-8.
    Madam Speaker, can my colleague expand on why the enforcement piece is so important in a bill like this and how this bill is lacking that? In his speech, he also outlined many instances where the government has enforcement tools at its disposal right now but seems to be very reluctant to use them, particularly when it comes to sanctions.
    What could the government be doing within its existing purview to ensure that those Canada has placed sanctions on, even some of the weak ones that we already have, are actually subject to some of the punishments that would be associated with the same?
    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the question. She has the theme right, which is the enforcement of the provisions. The government could be directing the Canada Border Services Agency to focus on the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals, or specifically, nationals from the Islamic Republic of Iran who are known affiliate members of the regime. It could focus on individuals who have been found or are strongly suspected to be associated with human rights violations in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    There are individuals in this country who are either violent criminals or associated with regimes that are inherently violent. That is a political direction the government could give directly to the CBSA. As I mentioned before, I have a response from the government saying it has only followed through on half its deportation orders.


    Madam Speaker, can the member expand on what the government's delays in taking action mean to our trading partners? What signal does this send to our partners in fighting these type of regimes?
    Madam Speaker, the signal it sends to other countries is that we are slow to act. That was the case when the protest in Iran happened, for example. It took the government six to eight weeks before it actually reacted as a government. There were statements made in the House by different government caucus members for sure, and members on our side of the House mentioned it as well. However, there was delayed action in putting people and organizations on the regimes list. Moreover, we have not done the final thing, which I think is what this House has actually called for since 2018.
    We passed a Conservative motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. With that, we can then go to court, where our partners and allies will see that Canada takes its role seriously in the world as a defender of human rights. Right now, we do not have it, so listing the IRGC, in the case of Iran, would actually show that we are serious about pursuing human rights violators in our country.
    Madam Speaker, for my constituents, I will say that we are debating a bill that proposes to establish a legal framework for persons to be declared inadmissible or deported from Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act due to their person, country of origin or organization being subject to sanctions.
    I want to pick up on my colleague's theme of the enforcement of sanctions. I think what the government is trying to do with this bill is make sure that no cases slip through the cracks, even though there are already a lot of mechanisms that exist in Canadian law to ensure that such persons would not have access to Canada. To pick up on the theme of enforcement, and my colleague from Calgary Shepard just outlined some of the issues with the enforcement of sanctions, the government deputy House leader also said that there may be people in Canada who are subject to sanctions the government has not yet moved to act on, which is troubling. The government has had eight years to deal with these sorts of instances, and it has not. However, the theme of slipping through the cracks is much broader than just this bill when it comes to the immigration system.
    To give an example of how I do not feel this bill adequately addresses enforcement mechanisms, I would like to draw my colleague's attention to an article that was published just moments ago in the Globe and Mail, which states that a member of the other place issued 640 documents to Afghan nationals, and I have seen one instance of these, which apparently said that individuals had been granted a visa to enter Canada. This was done through questioning over the last several days. The current Minister of Immigration said this was done without the authorization of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. What the IRCC said was that this senator did not have the authority, as no one does in this place, to issue visas.
    Yesterday, at the immigration committee, I outlined an instance of the family of one of my constituents receiving this letter, which frankly fooled me for nearly a year. They thought they had received a visa or permission to enter Canada, but even after a year of trying to deal with virtually every department in the Government of Canada, we could never get confirmation as to what documentation the government was or was not using. As the story is unfolding today, we are now seeing, in an affidavit put forward yesterday in a related court case by the affected person from the other place, as well a consultant named Laura Robinson, that there were apparently 640 instances of these letters being issued.
    What is worse is I know that the IRCC, GAC and other agencies were aware of at least the case I was dealing with, and as far as we can tell there was no action taken during this time. However, today, the affidavit that person put forward with respect to the case also states that this was done at the behest of the chief of staff of the defence minister at the time, whose name I believe is George Young, so that person actually sent these documents to the person from the other place and said to go ahead and use them. These documents say that they have been granted a visa and, at least in the instance I saw, bear a very authentic-looking Government of Canada seal. This is not just an email, but a document with a government seal that purports to grant somebody entry into Canada.
    The Globe and Mail article states that, in her affidavit, the senator said she regularly e-mailed the former minister of foreign affairs, the former minister of defence and the former immigration minister, who is now the Minister of Public Safety, as well as their senior staff. The names they gave were Mike Jones and Olga Radchenko.


    The issue I have with this is not that we should not be bringing Afghan nationals to Canada, particularly ones such as those in the family of my constituent, who Canada had a duty and obligation to protect. We should have been doing a lot more. The issue I have is that the government called a federal election and, according to this affidavit, allowed a workaround process, which none of us in this place had access to, but it appears it was essentially said that people who were not duly authorized by IRCC had the ability to issue these letters.
    There is a reason our immigration process is arm's length and separate from political mechanisms. It is so that we can ensure that the equity of the process is unimpeachable, and that when we are making hard decisions on who comes into this country, particularly in times of crisis, we can assure our constituents that this was done under just and legal circumstances, because that is how we ensure that the public has trust and faith in the institution of the government.
    This has enormous implications, and not just for the sanctity of the government's process on immigration. Again, the government is introducing legislation, I think, because it failed to use existing enforcement mechanisms. However, the case we are seeing today also put lives at risk.
    The family of my constituent believed that the letters they received, which they thought were coming from a government official, would allow them access to Canada. They came out of hiding and exposed themselves to try to get to the airport. Then, because they were in possession of these letters, my office tried to help them for nearly a year. We understood that they had been approved, so why could they not come to Canada? They were not able to apply for another program, and because they applied late, the government said, “Sorry, there's no room here.”
    Now I have to wonder about any other programs that the government put forward to bring Afghan nationals here. Now that there is a civil suit and all sorts of stuff happening, I wonder how they were selecting those persons. Are those persons going to be part of the lawsuit, which it is trying to make go away?
    It brings me no joy to raise these matters in the House, but the bottom line is that the government has exposed itself to this type of questioning, because it refused, apparently over the course of a year, and I do not know what happened here, to use basic enforcement mechanisms to see if the documentation that was being presented was authentic. If the government did not have a process to evacuate persons in Afghanistan, it should not have called a federal election. That is just the reality.
    I was the vice-chair of the immigration committee for four years. I know my way around the immigration file. However, these documents that came through my office fooled me. Why did they fool me? It was because the government was completely opaque, completely non-transparent, on the process by which it was using to address this situation.
    I get that it was chaotic, but part of the duty and onus of the government is to see these things coming, and many colleagues in the House were talking about it for months. We knew this was coming. The government knew that this was a risk, and instead of putting due process in place, it looks like it did a panic workaround, and I think it used a well-intentioned person. The Liberals knew about and should have shut this down to put something in place that was proper, or it should not have called an election. The result of this is a lack of compassion that undermines the integrity of our immigration system and puts people such as those in my constituent's family at risk.
    The government needs to do everything possible to find out what happened here and hold persons who are responsible for this to account. Otherwise, the bill that is in front of us today, or any other mechanism, is always going to have questions attached to it, such as this: Is having a fake visa issued by a member of Parliament or a senator the best way to get to Canada?


    Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments regarding the fraudulent documents.
    Many years ago, I was also on the immigration standing committee, and I remember the representation on that, because it applies when we talk about individuals who attempt to get into Canada, quite possibly even if they have been sanctioned. However, when we took a look at some of the documentation that was being provided, we found out that we have a whole industry out there that is built on designing documents that look authentic. We need to work with other agencies, particularly other international governments, to deal with that particular industry, because those documents are very convincing.
     I wonder if the member could provide further thoughts regarding the appearance of some of those fake documents.
    Madam Speaker, we are not talking about an industry in the case I raised. We are talking about a member of the other place, a sitting parliamentarian; a consultant who was paid for by tax dollars through that parliamentarian's office, as far as I can tell on her expense disclosures; and the former chief of staff to the defence minister. There is also a litany of associates of the government who were associated with the affidavit that was filed, so this is not about an industry.
    The question I would pose back to my colleague is how anybody could have any confidence in the government, if we are talking about members of the government, parliamentarians, being allowed to issue inauthentic documentation without any sort of recourse or remedy, even though, apparently, they have known about this for a while.
    Madam Speaker, I wrote to the then minister of foreign affairs in February of 2021 to demand he take action so that we would not have been in a situation where people were not able to get out of Afghanistan when Kabul fell. Of course, nothing was done. An election was called instead.
    However, I wonder if the member agrees we should have the current Minister of Public Safety, the current Minister of International Development and the previous minister of foreign affairs give some testimony in this place so we can be assured that no fraud took place.
    Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. Members in this place, including her, know that we had been raising this issue well before the 2021 election when Kabul fell. Members of this place will have the opportunity to talk to their caucuses about a motion in front of the citizenship and immigration committee that would summon these people so they can come to be questioned and held to account by Parliament, if the government will not do the same.

Statements by Members

[Statements by Members]


Public Safety

    Madam Speaker, I am rising today to bring to the government's attention the high level of concern being expressed by my constituents about their personal safety. There have been many incidents of violence and several have received widely covered attention, as they occurred in our community of Spadina—Fort York. For example, the tragic swarming and murder of Ken Lee, a 59-year-old man, by eight female youth assailants occurred right across the street from my constituency office. A woman was also stabbed on board the Spadina streetcar, the same transportation used by my constituents to go to school, to pick up groceries and to go to work.
    My community and our city demand action. Placing a few extra police on subway platforms, while helpful, is not a definitive answer. That is why I have organized a town hall meeting in my riding on February 15 on the issue of community safety. Representatives from the Toronto Police Service will also be present. This meeting gives constituents an opportunity to voice their concerns and explore measures that could be put in place—


    The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Health Care

    Madam Speaker, no matter where one lives or what one earns, health care services throughout the country are something we all believe in. They are a core part of what it means to be a Canadian.
    There will be $198 billion in additional federal dollars to support health care over the next 10 years. That is a commitment to a national health care program, with access to family doctors or nurse practitioners, support for health care workers and a reduction in backlogs. Mental health is part of health care, and there must be support for data and science, transparency and fairness.
    The Canada Health Act matters to all Canadians. I am proud to be part of a government that is so committed to providing one of our core values.

The Economy

    Madam Speaker, it is good to see you in the House. Welcome back.
    It is just incredible that the Liberal government believes Canadians have never had it so good, but it is just plain wrong. The Prime Minister believes his tax-and-spend agreement is just too good to quit, even though over half the country's people think the Prime Minister is just incapable of doing his job.
    Record-high inflation just increased by 9%, and it is just some half a trillion in spending that led to this crisis. However, CRA officials think the money is just not worth tracking down.
    Canadians are just trying to get by, and that is why the Conservative team is going to make Canada the best place to live on earth again. The carbon tax will then be just a bad nightmare for farmers, and they will be happy that they finally got a break.
    It is just the Prime Minister who got Canada into this mess, and Canadians want the Prime Minister to just get out of the way so the Conservatives can just clean it up.

William Joseph Gorman

    Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my condolences on the passing of William Joseph Gorman. As an educator, speaker and volunteer, Bill gave of himself freely and touched the lives of many. He was a model of what all good teachers and all good people aspire to be.
    My memories of Bill go back to September 1976. In those first few weeks of being back in Canada and going to English school for the first time, not only did I not know anyone but I also could not communicate in English. There was Mr. Gorman, then principal of St. Agnes Elementary and Junior High, who welcomed me with kindness and compassion. He offered support with a smile then, as well as decades later when I decided to run for public office and we reconnected.
    To his wife Diane, children Bruce and Cindy, grandchildren and extended family, I offer my sincere condolences. Please know that he will be fondly remembered for his good deeds and actions.

Black History Month

    Madam Speaker, February is Black History Month, and this year's theme is “Black Resistance: Remember, Recognize, and Educate”. After two years of virtual programming, I am thrilled that Black History Month events are being held in person again in Winnipeg.
    I want to congratulate Black History Month Manitoba and its chairperson Nadia Thompson. For over 40 years, this organization has played a critical role in serving Black communities and educating the broader public about Black history, Black resistance and the enormous contributions the Black community has made in Manitoba.
    I also want to acknowledge my provincial NDP colleague Jamie Moses, the MLA for St. Vital, whose bill to officially recognize February as Black History Month in Manitoba received royal assent on December 1, 2022. I am delighted that the bill passed in time for this February.
    Black history is Manitoba history and Winnipeg history. I encourage folks to visit Black History Manitoba's website for a full calendar of events taking place—


    The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.


YMCA Youth Exchanges Canada

    Madam Speaker, students from Gérard-Filion and Agora high schools in my riding are hosting some great company this week. Students from Nanaimo Christian School in British Columbia are visiting as part of the YMCA's Youth Exchanges Canada program, funded by Canadian Heritage.
    According to Lyne Marcheterre, from Gérard-Filion School, cultural exchanges like this are important because they give young people a chance to see and understand how other people live.
    During their stay, the young people will visit the Quebec Winter Carnival, Montreal's Chinatown and many other places. In the spring, the Longueuil students will travel to Nanaimo to visit this beautiful part of Canada. This exchange program offers young people a unique experience that promotes teamwork and openness to others. I am sure they will take full advantage.
    I commend everyone participating in this exchange and wish the students from British Columbia a pleasant stay.


Electricity Production

    Madam Speaker, energy affordability is a major concern under the NDP-Liberal costly coalition. While the NDP and the Liberals are clinging to their woke climate dogma, many Canadians are struggling with the decision to put food on their tables or to heat their homes, and it is only going to get worse.
    According to the government’s own documents, there will be a nearly 25% increase in electricity demand by 2050, mainly due to these out-of-touch Liberal mandate policies. What is the plan to increase our electricity production? What energy sources will we use to fuel this increase? When will the Liberals begin to build grid capacity in our electrical system?
    An upgrade like this is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will take decades to build, but, as usual, the Liberals make the announcement, do the photo op and then do nothing, except this time their obsession with wokeism might literally leave Canadians in the dark, bankrupt or both.

Women and Girls in Science

    Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the International Day of Women and Girls in Science and the incredible women and girls who have discovered their love for and pursued careers in science and technology.
    I am sending my love to all of these women, including the many who work in companies like Nokia, Ericsson and Ciena in my riding of Kanata—Carleton. These women continue to inspire new generations of young girls to explore STEM careers. They are careers in which people can literally change the world.
    Despite countless barriers, the traditionally male-dominated fields of science and technology are becoming more and more enriched by the balance that gender equity brings. We must smash stereotypes and clear the hurdles that hold women and girls back. We must strive to expose girls to the fields of science and technology and support their ambitions.
    I want to remind girls who love research—
    The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge Park.

Children's Breakfast Club

    Madam Speaker, for many years, the Children’s Breakfast Club has marked Black History Month in Canada by visiting Parliament Hill. Hundreds of children from across the greater Toronto area pack onto trains provided by Via Rail and make their way to the Hill. During their journey, they are accompanied by special guests, such as the Hon. Jean Augustine, whom we all must thank for ensuring that Black History Month is recognized across Canada.
    They learn about the many Black Canadian trailblazers based on the themes chosen for that year. They are Black porters, doctors, nurses and politicians who have left their mark on Canadian history for generations to come. This year's theme is “Emancipation Day”.
    I will be happy to welcome the Children’s Breakfast Club back to the Hill, after a pandemic pause, on Wednesday, February 15. I welcome my colleagues in the House to join us as we recognize the contributions of Black Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Earthquakes in Turkey and Syria

    Madam Speaker, as I speak, Turks, Kurds, Syrians and many others are living the tragedy of the 7.8 magnitude earthquake. As of now, reports estimate the death toll at over 22,000 people, and unfortunately the number of lives lost is expected to increase. However, there is more we can do to help, both as a government and as a people, starting with urging Turkey’s government to end the discrimination against Kurdish earthquake victims.
    According to Kurdish journalists and victims of the earthquake, Kurdish cities, including Elbistan and Pazarcik, are not receiving aid or emergency rescue services from Turkish organizations. YIMER 157, the government foreign communications network in Turkey, translates in seven languages the emergency information needed to save people, but bizarrely not in Kurdish, the second most spoken language in the country.
    Relief organizations like Heyva Sor, the Kurdish Red Crescent and the White Helmets in Syria are wonderful options for Canadians. The need is great, and the tens of thousands of displaced and injured people need our support.


Black History Month

    Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Black History Month, I want to take a moment to recognize and honour the contributions and achievements of Black Canadians. From trailblazers in politics, arts and science to everyday heroes who have made a difference in their communities, Black Canadians have played a vital role in shaping our country.
    I would like to acknowledge Markham—Unionville's own York Region Alliance of African Canadian Communities and the Markham African Caribbean Canadian Association for their exceptional advocacy in our community.
    This month, let us also remember the ongoing struggle for racial justice and equity, and commit to working toward a more inclusive and welcoming society for all. I am proud to stand with Black Canadians, and I am committed to continuing to support and uplift their voices.

Government Accountability

    Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians are lined up at food banks and Liberal insiders are lining their pockets. We continue to see it time and time again, with the Prime Minister furthering the interests of his friends, just as the former finance minister, the intergovernmental affairs minister and now the trade minister have done. It is sweetheart deals and hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the case, to Liberal insiders while Canadians struggle to keep the heat on.
    Canadians expect better from their government officials and they deserve accountability. Canada's Conservatives will continue to press the government to be accountable to Canadians. We are going to give Canadians that accountability and will continue to call on the minister to resign and repay the tens of thousands of dollars she gave to her insider friends.

The Economy

    Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis, with inflation at a 40-year high, seniors worried about putting food on the table and university students going to food banks.
    After eight years of the Prime Minister's incompetence, we have high interest rates, doubling of mortgage payments and out-of-reach residential rent rates.
    After eight years of the Prime Minister mismanaging our economy, job postings are not being filled and investors are heading south, and all the while the Liberal government is doubling the national debt.
    After eight years, Canada is missing all of its environmental targets, but the Liberals will triple the carbon tax, driving up the cost of everything and making home heating more expensive.
    After eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians have had enough. The Conservatives will keep the heat on and take the tax off.


International STARS Program

     Madam Speaker, earlier this year, the Université de Sherbrooke ranked first in the international STARS program, a system that rates higher education institutions' sustainable development performance. This is an unprecedented achievement.
    This prestigious recognition attests to not only the institution's leadership position when it comes to sustainable development, but also its ability to drive change to inspire and push our societies and our country to become greener, more responsible and more inclusive.
    To tackle current environmental issues, over 75% of Université de Sherbrooke's departments are involved in research related to sustainable development issues, and over 90% of the departments offer courses related to these issues. We can be proud of the vision of the university's leadership and the commitment shown by all faculty, staff and the entire student body in taking this educational institution to new heights.


Indigenous Affairs

    Madam Speaker, millions of Canadians are grappling with the reality of our country's colonial past and present, but our institutions are not, and this House is the worst among them.
    Yesterday I sat at the public accounts committee and listened to the Auditor General plead with the government to finally do what is right and end the systemic racism present in the federal prison system. It is no secret that indigenous people make up the vast majority of those in our prison system while only making up a minority in Canada. These are shameful results.
    Instead of holding the government truly accountable, the Leader of the Opposition is only making things worse, with reckless rhetoric and failed tough-on-crime policies that harm Black and indigenous communities without making things safer.
    I call on the Minister of Public Safety and the Leader of the Opposition to sit down and listen to the indigenous people who are living the consequences of this colonization.



Teacher Appreciation Week

    Madam Speaker, this is Teacher Appreciation Week and I would like to salute them.
    This year's theme is most appropriate: “Everyday we measure the significance of your role.” Indeed, every day we entrust our teachers with the most precious thing in the world, our children.
    We send them to learn, grow and develop under their teachers' watchful eye. Our teachers put their hearts and souls into their work and spend long hours teaching in conditions that are often difficult. Every day they find ever more creative ways of using their limited resources to create small miracles. They hold the future of Quebec in their hands and know how to care for them.
    On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to thank them for their dedication to our children. On a more personal note, I would like to highlight the exceptional dedication of the teacher closest to my heart, my wife Line, her sister Francine and her father Gaétan, who have 60 years of combined teaching experience.

Tragedy at Laval Day Care

    Madam Speaker, two days after the tragedy in Laval, we are all still in shock. Families are in mourning, parents and children have been scarred for life, and parents everywhere have to explain the inexplicable to their kids.
     In this time of unspeakable tragedy, let us pay tribute to the exceptional efforts of first responders, as well of Mike Haddad, a father on the scene who took immediate and decisive action. He said, “The real heroes are the child care workers and the children.... In my opinion, the most important thing now is how the parents who lost their children are doing. I will survive, my kids will survive.” He said that he would never forget “the voice of the little girl whom they were unable to locate”.
    Like many, I have the great joy of being a father and a grandfather to two preschool-age granddaughters. I cannot imagine the pain the parents are feeling as a result of this despicable act.
     Now more than ever, we must be observant and not hesitate to ask for help. These children will stay in our hearts forever. Their lives were shorter than our memories of them will be, because we will never forget them.


50th Anniversary of the City of Cambridge

    Madam Speaker, this year is the 50th anniversary of the city of Cambridge, Ontario, my hometown, which was formed when Galt, Preston, Hespeler and Blair were amalgamated in 1973. As someone who has lived in Cambridge for many years, I am proud to call Cambridge my home.
    This year, we are celebrating the beauty of our architecture, our natural environments, our booming restaurant industry, our inspiring arts and culture community, our contributions to television and film, and the history and heritage that shaped our community. We remember the people of Cambridge who made the city what it is today. This year, let us come together to celebrate the past, present and future of Cambridge. Let us continue to build on the legacy of those who have come before us and create a future that is brighter than ever before.
    I invite all in this House and everyone across Canada to visit Cambridge to celebrate its 50th birthday.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]


Canada Revenue Agency

    Madam Speaker, here is another week and another condemnation for the Liberals. The Parliamentary Budget Officer they appointed condemned their own government for saying it is “not worth the effort” to recover $15 billion of COVID overpayments to wealthy corporations. Worse, they have not changed a thing. The Auditor General said so, too. They hired 10,000 more tax collectors.
    That is $15 billion. Is $1,000 per Canadian household, per family, not worth it? Are they kidding?


    Madam Speaker, all one has to do is go into Canadian communities across this country to understand the importance of the various COVID-19 emergency programs that were introduced. Whether it was CERB or whether it was the wage subsidy, these programs helped the country through. At a time when Canadians needed their government, their government was there.
    Where was the opposition? The opposition was talking about austerity. It was talking about making cuts. We will not defend that kind of agenda. We will put forward a progressive agenda that helps Canadians.
    Madam Speaker, the government says it is not worth collecting $15 billion from its well-connected, wealthy corporate friends. Today, the Liberals are standing by that. If someone’s grandmother owed $15, the CRA would call that grandmother until she paid back every last cent, but $15 billion is not worth it. They must be kidding.
    Will they commit to getting the illegal money back from big corporations so that Canadian families can afford to pay their bills?
    Madam Speaker, it turns out the Conservatives apparently are following the lead of their leader, who was staying up very late at night, as we understand, watching crypto episodes on YouTube. What he is missing as a result of that, and what they are missing, is the public record.
    At the public accounts committee last week, the commissioner of the CRA made it very clear that the verification work is ongoing with respect to determining whether individuals and businesses were actually eligible for the support they received. This work is vital. We committed to it as a government and they supported it, so let us let it continue.

The Economy

    Madam Speaker, they have not changed a thing. The Auditor General said so. There are $15 billion of illegal payments to corporations and more taxes for ordinary Canadians.
    After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians are the ones cutting back. They are cutting back on meals; one in five is skipping them. Seniors are turning their heat down because of the Prime Minister's punishing carbon tax. They are cutting back on the things they want after eight years of the Prime Minister making everything they need more expensive.
    Canadians are the ones feeling the Liberal government's austerity. Will it take responsibility or get out of the way so we can fix it?
    Madam Speaker, we reduced taxes for middle-class Canadians on two separate occasions, and both times the Conservatives voted against it.
    I would like to address the Statistics Canada report of this morning, which indicated that 150,000 new jobs were created in January alone. This is well above market expectations, and we know that the best thing for Canadians struggling to meet the rising cost of living is to have a good, well-paying job.


    Madam Speaker, after eight years under this Prime Minister, inflationary policies have shattered the dreams of middle-class Canadians. They are the big losers of this government's decisions. Middle-class Canadians are excluded from the Liberals' aid programs because they are too rich, but they are not rich enough to benefit from the Prime Minister's generosity to his friends. Nine out of 10 young Canadians will not be able to fulfill their dream of home ownership, which is really sad.
    Will the Prime Minister take responsibility so that we can finally give Canadians the right to dream and have a better future?
    Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are talking about the middle class. We cut taxes for middle-class Canadians twice. The Conservatives voted against those measures. This morning, we learned that 150,000 new jobs were created in Canada. One-third of those jobs, or nearly 50,000, were created in Quebec. Our priority is to ensure that we have good, well-paying jobs for Canadians, and this morning's figures are proof of that.
    Madam Speaker, what we voted against are this government's inflationary policies of the past eight years.
    This week, the big grocery store chains announced that the price of groceries is going to increase again in the next few months. Last year, prices went up by 11%. This year, the average family is going to pay $1,000 more for groceries, so they can eat, so they can put butter, bread, meat and vegetables on their table.
    That is the reality that the Liberals do not want to see, but that is how it is right now in Canada. Will the Prime Minister admit—


    The hon. Minister of Sport.
    Madam Speaker, our government is taking a responsible attitude and helping the people who need it the most.
    For example, we created the Canada dental benefit for children under 12. We introduced a $500 top-up to the Canada—
    I have to interrupt the hon. minister for a moment.


    The hon. member will please allow the minister to answer the question.
    The hon. minister.


    Madam Speaker, I was saying that our government is taking a responsible attitude by helping those who are most in need at this difficult time.
    What we do not understand is why, every time we want to do something to help Canadians, the Conservatives oppose it, just as they did when we cut taxes for the middle class twice.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

    Madam Speaker, we knew that New York was paying for bus tickets to Plattsburgh for asylum seekers making their way to Roxham Road.
    Today, however, CBC/Radio-Canada revealed that, once they get there, U.S. border patrol agents are personally bringing those asylum seekers to Roxham Road. Some U.S. border patrol agents have even turned this into a black market enterprise. The Americans are thumbing their noses at the federal government. Their own government employees are smuggling people through Roxham Road.
    When will the government put an end to this bad joke and suspend the safe third country agreement?
    Madam Speaker, the decision to suspend the agreement with the United States will only shift the problem elsewhere. There is no magic solution.
    It is essential to continue our work with our American partners to modernize our agreements with them. At the same time, we must continue to co-operate with our counterparts in the province of Quebec to support their efforts.


    This is an important issue. It is being treated extremely seriously. We are going to be there for our provincial partners and work with our international partners to find a lasting solution.


    Madam Speaker, Canada must respect its obligations to asylum seekers, but it does not have to do the Americans' job for them. When talking about traffickers at Roxham Road, who would have ever believed we would be referring to U.S. customs officers.
    It is illegal to exploit asylum seekers. It is illegal to help people make an irregular border crossing.
    Can the Minister of Public Safety pick up the phone, call his American counterpart and demand that he manage his own employees who are committing crimes at Roxham Road?
    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is vital that we continue to work with our partners. My department's representatives have had many discussions with our American counterparts about modernizing the agreement with the U.S. and finding a permanent solution.
    At the same time, we must continue to work with the Province of Quebec. It is important that we meet our obligations to support asylum seekers and also fulfill our domestic and international obligations.


Foreign Affairs

    Madam Speaker, Afghan women and girls cannot go to school. They cannot see a doctor. They are prisoners in their own country. For 18 months, these women and girls should have been getting help from Canadian organizations. Instead, Canada's so-called “feminist government” continues to fail Afghans by delaying a humanitarian carve-out.
    How much longer will the Minister of Public Safety make women and girls in Afghanistan wait? How many more women and girls in Afghanistan will die before he acts?
    Madam Speaker, the situation in Afghanistan, in particular for Afghan women and girls, is terrible. We condemn the Taliban's treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan and the treatment of women's liberty there. Access to education, as we all know, is a fundamental human right, and one that should be respected. The Taliban will be judged by its actions in this regard.


    Madam Speaker, nurses and health care workers are run off their feet, exhausted and burning out. They are mainly women, disproportionately racialized women, yet they have never been paid fairly. This discrimination is wrong and the Liberals let it worsen over the last seven years. Our nurses and health care workers are underpaid and undervalued. They deserve better wages, better working conditions and respect.
    Why does the Liberals' health care offer to provinces not include real funding for raises to finally give care economy workers the respect they deserve?


    Madam Speaker, our colleague is exactly right. For workers to care for people and patients, we need to care for them. It has been very hard during COVID-19 and until now. All the pressure, mental health challenges and the physical damage that COVID has had on workers has left a large number of them sick or tired. We need to care for them if we want them to keep caring for us.

Carbon Pricing

    Madam Speaker, eight years of Liberal deficits, waste and corruption have driven inflation to record highs, and nowhere is that more obvious than in the grocery aisle. The Prime Minister likes to try to blame everyone else, but even the Liberals are now admitting that inflation is caused by domestic factors. One of those factors is the carbon tax. It makes everything farmers use to grow their crops more expensive, and those costs get passed onto consumers. The government is now going to triple that carbon tax.
    Why should Canadians believe anything the Liberals say about addressing the cost of living crisis, when they are deliberately making Canadians pay more for food?
    Madam Speaker, let us talk about the rising cost of food. Let us talk about what families are facing. Let us talk about families like mine. When I am at the grocery store with my son Nitin and he wants a particular cereal or particular dessert, I talk to him about the rising cost of groceries. I also explain to him what we are doing to help Canadians, and I tell him that we are targeting our—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    If an hon. member asks a question, please give the other hon. member answering it the courtesy of keeping silent.
    The hon. parliamentary secretary.
    Madam Speaker, when I speak to my son, I explain what we are doing, in a targeted way, to help Canadians who are struggling with the cost of those groceries, those expensive items, as we walk down the aisle in grocery stores. I tell him we are using targeted benefits, such as dental care benefits and affordability benefits—
    The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
    Madam Speaker, the worst part about the Liberals' carbon tax is that they try to dress it up as an environment plan, but it is not working. They have not hit a single target. The Liberal plan was to drive up the cost of everything and hope that greenhouse gas emissions fell as a result. I can report to the minister that the first part of that plan, making everything more expensive, they nailed that, but the second part, not so much. Canada's Food Price Report is now saying that food prices are going to go up again in 2023 as a typical farm can see its taxes, with the tripling of the carbon tax, hit $150,000 a year. Again, all of that get passed on to consumers.
    Why is the government making Canadians—
    The hon. parliamentary secretary.
    Madam Speaker, that is another important question, but there is also an important response. The response is that, when we are trying to target an issue as pressing as national and international climate change, we need to take direct action. That is the kind of answer my children demand from me at the dinner table each and every night. They ask what I am doing to deal with the changing pollution and the changing temperatures. I say to them that we are putting in place a price on pollution that affects people's behaviour and that helps us make better decisions for our families and for our country. Those are the kinds of answers Canadians deserve.
    Madam Speaker, I can say that whatever the Liberals are targeting, it is not working. Why do they not try targeting this, the 415% increase in seniors using the Orangeville Food Bank since 2017. That is what we get with eight years of the government. There are also the 45% of Canadians who are within $200 of not being able to make ends meet. Why do they not target them? Instead, they are going to triple the carbon tax and make everything even worse.
    When will the government stop hurting families and do something to help them by allowing them to keep the heat on and cut that darn carbon tax?
    Madam Speaker, I find it so ironic when Conservatives stand up day in, day out and pretend to care about seniors. However, day in, day out and year in, year out, they vote against everything we put forward for seniors. I have just a selection of them. The GIS top-up of $947 annually for 900,000 single seniors was voted against. Enhancing the CPP by 50% for future retirees was voted against, as was restoring the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65 from 67, which made seniors work two years more to get the benefits they worked for.


    Madam Speaker, according to that member, it appears as if seniors have never had it so good, but after eight years of the Prime Minister, life just keeps getting more and more expensive. Because of the Liberal carbon tax, Canadians can no longer afford to eat, heat or house themselves appropriately, and it is about to get even worse under the government's planned tripling of the carbon tax. Conservatives will keep the heat on and continue to fight this useless and costly tax.
    Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for this cost of living crisis so we can fix what he has broken?
    Madam Speaker, the Conservatives talk a pretty good line on affordability, but when it comes time to deliver, they are just not present. They voted against every one of our affordability measures, but there is good news on the horizon. As of April 1, a family of four will receive a climate rebate up to $1,500 in the member's home province of Alberta and $1,000 in my home province of Manitoba. Eight out of 10 families will be better off. Those payments will come quarterly.
    Life will be more affordable. I do not know why the Conservatives just will not take good news.
    Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, Canadians are quickly running out of patience and time.
    Let me tell the House about Donnie from my riding. He depends on the Ontario disability support program to get by. With the surge in rent, he spends 90% of his income just to keep a roof over his head. That leaves very little for groceries or heating. Donnie needs help. He needs a government that will keep the heat on by taking the tax off.
    When will the Prime Minister get out of the way and let us fix the problems he caused?
    Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree in the chamber that no person with a disability should live in poverty. That is why we are committed to creating the Canada disability benefit, a thoughtfully designed income supplement with the potential to seriously reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age people with disabilities from coast to coast to coast.
    On February 3, Bill C-22 passed unanimously in the House and—
    The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

The Economy

    Madam Speaker, we hear more and more about spending. Let me paraphrase a little bit. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, life is objectively getting worse for many Canadians. Hey, the government might be failing miserably, but it is spending a lot of money doing it, so that is okay, right? It seems like the only ones in Canada who have money, the only ones who are not going broke, are Liberal insiders.
    When will the Prime Minister stop collecting his paycheque so Canadians can keep theirs?
    Madam Speaker, when that party was in power, Canada had its worst growth ever since World War II.
    The problems that Canadians faced at that point were that there were more than two million people in poverty who are not now, and there were one and a half million people who did not have jobs then who do now.
     We are leading the world in terms of the second-highest GDP growth in the world for this year and we will continue. The reality is that, yes, times are difficult globally and it does not feel great to lead when the world is down. However, when the tide turns, it sure will feel good to lead when the world is doing well.


Public Services and Procurement

    Madam Speaker, there is a code of silence in the public service when it comes to McKinsey. We know that the opposition has called on the federal government to disclose all its contracts with the firm. Yesterday, in committee, a senior public servant revealed that he warned the heads of all departments and agencies covered by our request to beware of MPs. He advised them to be careful what they write down in case it ends up in the hands of elected members.
    What do public servants know that they no longer have the right to write down?
    Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising the conversation that took place at the parliamentary committee. We take this information seriously. Members know very well that the minister responsible for procurement and I are examining all the questions regarding McKinsey contracts. We will continue to do so. Officials are responsible for examining all matters relating to procurement. We will be reviewing those projects with the parliamentary committee and listening to its recommendations.


    Madam Speaker, lack of transparency has been the key issue in the McKinsey affair from the beginning. The Comptroller General of Canada has recommended a culture of silence in the public service, and that is just wrong. This is an indication that the government regards Parliament and us, MPs, as nothing less than a threat. This is serious.
    The minister's response suggests that the federal government is going through the documents we requested with a fine-tooth comb, and with its Liquid Paper at the ready.
    Is the government trying to cover its tracks and obfuscate?
    Madam Speaker, we are in the process of undertaking a comprehensive review of all contracts with McKinsey.
    Of course, officials and public servants are making sure that they are following all of the procurement management processes. We will continue to do that and review it.
    The teams are conducting their work in accordance with the international standards of the profession. This review is also going to be done with internal audit teams, whose work requires them to be independent and objective.
    We will be looking at that obviously over the next—


Carbon Pricing

    Madam Speaker, after years of the Liberal Prime Minister, seniors must choose between heating and eating.
     Sonia from Winnipeg called me in tears because she can no longer afford to keep the heat at room temperature. She tells me she sleeps under five blankets to keep warm. She can no longer afford the Liberal plan to triple the carbon tax.
    When will the Liberal government turn off the tax so that seniors can turn on the heat?
    Madam Speaker, we recognize the challenges seniors are facing, and our government has been there for them. In fact, the only thing tripling is the misinformation from the party across the aisle.
    Unlike the party opposite, which has opposed every single measure to support seniors and gives reckless advice to invest in crypto, the government is helping seniors who are struggling. We have doubled the GST tax credit. We provided dental and rental support. We also increased the OAS for seniors aged 75 and over.
    We will take no lessons from the Conservative Party of Canada.
    Madam Speaker, only smart people take lessons, by the way.
    Liberals insist their carbon tax is revenue-neutral, while picking the pockets of average Canadians. Life is no longer affordable. Faced with inflation, tax increases and record-high prices, the Prime Minister shows his sympathy by planning to triple the carbon tax. Conservatives would keep the heat on and take the tax off.
    For eight years, the Prime Minister has ignored the needs of all Canadians. When will he step aside so we can fix what he has broken?
    Madam Speaker, listening to the Conservatives, day in and day out, the words “climate change” just never come out of their mouths. That is not surprising, because for 10 long years, they did absolutely nothing on climate change. They are stuck in the past. We are looking to the future.
     We are looking to make life more affordable for Canadians, and the Conservatives keep voting against us. We are going to build the economy of tomorrow and the good jobs of today, and make life more affordable for Canadians.
    Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, Vera, a car wash owner in my riding is struggling because of the carbon tax. She says that if she keeps raising rates in her small rural town, people will stop coming and she will go out of business.
    Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for crippling small business owners like Vera and remove the carbon tax? If he will not stop the tax, then he should get out of the way. Conservatives will keep the heat on and take the tax off.
    Madam Speaker, if the member opposite was talking to his constituents, he might have also been told that, in January, they received either a direct-deposit payment or a cheque as a climate action incentive. It has been shown that eight out of 10 Canadians will receive more through that backstop than was paid through the climate pricing.
    In fact, we are working very hard to make life more affordable, and we are supporting Canadians through the changes with utility bills and the like by helping them with retrofit. It is creating good-paying jobs in communities like this.
    Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, he leaves a sad legacy. It is not his fault that Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves, he says, but now he is making it even worse. He is going to triple the carbon tax. Conservatives will turn all this hurt into hope by fighting to keep the heat on and take the tax off.
    Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for this mess he made and get out of the way so Conservatives can fix what he broke?


    Madam Speaker, the hon. member is from my home province of Manitoba, and Manitobans will receive $1,000 in their climate action rebate this year. Again, the hon. member will know what has been happening with climate change on the Prairies: two $1-billion floods, two one-in-300-years floods, and the worst drought in 50 or 60 years that has paralyzed our farm community. The hon. member and his party should get serious about climate change and stop the denial.

Climate Change

    Madam Speaker, a report released yesterday shows clearly that carbon capture and storage is not an effective net-zero solution, so why did the Liberals plow ahead with this flawed approach, committing $8.6 billion? Well, they were listening to big oil. Here is a hot tip: If the government wants to make good climate policy, stop listening to oil and gas lobbyists, who, by the way, are making record profits while destroying our planet.
    Will the Liberals cancel their carbon capture handouts to big oil and instead invest in real climate solutions?
    Madam Speaker, we are working on real climate solutions right across our economy. Whether it be putting on a target on sales of electric vehicles to reduce combustion, or whether it be retrofitting buildings right across our country to reduce combustion, we are taking action.
    Carbon capture and storage is one of the tools in the tool box. It is not the only one. Here on this side, we know we are going to take a full spectrum across all sectors of our economy so that we take action on climate change.
    Madam Speaker, Canadians have seen what happens when we are not prepared for climate disasters: Homes are swept out to sea, and vital transportation corridors are destroyed by floods. Municipalities across Canada are asking for help, but the Liberals are not stepping up. Instead, according to Postmedia, the government is underfunding disaster adaptation by $13 billion.
    The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is calling for action, so will the Liberals listen and immediately increase disaster adaptation funding?
    Madam Speaker, unlike the party opposite, we believe climate change is real. Those costs are going up, as the hon. member mentioned, and we are feeling the impacts from coast to coast to coast: floods, fires and droughts costing billions. That is why we launched, just a short time ago, our national adaptation strategy. We have invested $1.6 billion, and there are 84 very specific measures. We are going to protect our communities. We are going to save lives, and we are going to build a resilient economy.


    Madam Speaker, over the last few years, especially over the last three years, our health care system has experienced significant challenges. Every Canadian deserves to get the health care they need whenever and wherever they need it. That is why I am proud our government presented a plan to deliver real results for patients and health care workers.
    Can the Minister of Health please update this House on the recent progress made to improve health care for all Canadians?
    Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague from Kitchener for her hard work. I am thankful for this opportunity to say exactly that. On Tuesday, we made an offer of over $200 billion over the next 10 years to prepare the future in health care, but also to repair the damage that was caused by COVID-19, by giving more access to family health teams, which are essential for a truly functioning health care system, reducing backlogs, supporting health care workers, investing in mental health and having a data system in Canada that saves lives and protects the health of workers.


Public Safety

    Madam Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister's soft-on-crime policies, the consequences are devastating. In Vancouver, the same 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in a single year. The Liberal government is fine with releasing criminals back into their communities.
    Shootings in Montreal are on the rise. The government is reducing sentences for gun crimes. This cannot happen in Canada.
    When will they introduce tougher measures to keep violent criminals in jail?



    The laws are clear. If an accused poses a risk to public safety, they should be denied bail. At the Minister of Justice's direction, federal officials have been working for months with their provincial and territorial counterparts to develop ways to best keep Canadians safe.
    We all have a role to play in protecting our communities. In fact, the Minister of Justice met with police chiefs from across the country to listen to their suggestions on how to deal with serious, repeat violent offenders on bail. They agreed that we need lasting solutions that are—


    Madam Speaker, violent crime has increased by 32% since this Prime Minister took office. After eight years, gang-related homicides are up by 92%. Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned.
    It is sad to see that, in such a peaceful country as Canada, people are now afraid to walk down the street or take the subway in Toronto.
    What will the Prime Minister do to take things seriously and put in place real measures to protect people?
    Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are talking about the increase in violence in our streets and the increase in gun violence. However, they are against gun control in Canada.
    We introduced a bill that seeks to freeze the market for handguns, and the Conservatives are against the idea. If they really want to protect our children and Canadians, they need to get on board so that we can get handguns off our streets.



    Madam Speaker, after eight years of Liberals dragging their feet and not acting on bail reform, we find ourselves here, where bail is broken.
    Premiers want change. Canadians want change. Police want change.
    The government prefers to talk rather than act. Yesterday, I and my Conservative colleagues took the first step in a very long journey on bail in tabling Bill C-313. Will the government pass this legislation or get out of the way so that we can reform bail?
    Madam Speaker, all Canadians deserve to be safe and to feel safe. The laws on bail are clear. If an accused person poses a serious risk to public safety, they should be denied bail.
    At the Minister of Justice's direction, federal officials have been working for months with their provincial and territorial counterparts. We all have a role to play in protecting our communities. In fact, the Minister of Justice met with police chiefs from across Canada to listen to their suggestions on how to deal with serious, violent repeat offenders on bail. They agreed that we need lasting solutions that are tough when they need to be tough but also address underlying issues—
    Madam Speaker, I invite my hon. colleague to go back and listen to the Minister of Justice's remarks to this House when asked similar questions on January 30 and 31 of this year, and into the prior year, where he essentially denied that there was a problem. We now hear that they have been talking for months. After eight years of inaction, the bail system has never been worse. Canadians feel unsafe, with a 32% increase in violent crime and gangland homicides up 92%.
    No more talk, Canadians want action. We are ready to start the process with bail reform on a very long journey. Will they help or get out of the way?
    Madam Speaker, we will agree on one thing: that all Canadians deserve safety and that their government needs to take their safety as a fundamental priority.
    Where we do not agree is that there are foundational issues that relate to criminal justice problems and the overrepresentation of certain communities in our criminal justice system, things like systemic racism, things like colonial legacies vis-à-vis the indigenous community.
    What I would reiterate is that we need the co-operation of all parties to tackle these multiple issues that lead to criminality in our society. When we address the root causes, such as mental illness, addictions and systemic racism, that is when we can truly achieve the goal of keeping our communities safe.




    Madam Speaker, many people have probably spent the afternoon at the mall, only to open their Facebook account later and see an ad for something they saw earlier. This is no coincidence. Facebook follows us even when we are shopping in person.
    Major chains like Home Depot, The Bay, Best Buy and many others share our invoices with Meta, without our consent, every time they send us an electronic receipt. Meta knows everything about our consumption patterns, whether we like it or not.
    Why does the federal government condone this practice?


    Madam Speaker, Canadians have never been more reliant on the digital economy, yet our existing digital privacy law was updated before the advent of technologies such as the use of social media and smart phones.
    In the new digital economy, enhanced privacy will not only benefit consumers, but also allow companies to innovate, compete and thrive. That is why it is crucial to have clear rules when it comes to this sector, and that is why our government was proud to introduce our digital charter legislation. We hope all parties will join us in supporting this—
    The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.


    Madam Speaker, Bill C‑27 was supposed to tighten control over personal information, but it fails to address that practice and it does not recognize the fundamental right to privacy as recommended by the Privacy Commissioner.
    Bill C‑27 does not require businesses to seek valid consent of clients before sharing their data. The simple act of requesting an electronic receipt does not constitute authorization to provide our personal data.
    Will the government amend Bill C‑27 to protect client data rather than the right of businesses to share the data without consent?
    Madam Speaker, our government takes Canadians' and Quebeckers' privacy very seriously. That is why we introduced a bill to address that. We will continue to work with all parties to ensure that consumers are protected and that the web-based economy can continue to grow.


Public Services and Procurement

    Madam Speaker, after eight long years of the Liberal Prime Minister, more than 1.5 million people use a food bank each month, and parents are skipping meals so kids do not have to. This is the reality for many hard-working families across Canada, but over in Liberal land, the Prime Minister's well-connected buddies at McKinsey are cashing in on their $119-million contracts while popping champagne on their yachts.
    Will the Prime Minister stop wasting money on his wealthy friends and get out of the way so we can fix this scandal-plagued government?
    Madam Speaker, for the first part, it has been seven years and not eight years, and I know the Conservatives have a great difficulty with math.
    Talking about other errors in arithmetic, the reality of the Conservatives when they were in power is that they did not talk about those who were dealing with poverty, and they did not talk about the most vulnerable when they had an opportunity. It was this government that set targets on poverty, and that has actually hit and exceeded them every single year. It is this government that has reduced the levels of poverty in this country, such that over two million fewer people are in poverty now than when the Conservatives were in power. That means over 800,000 fewer children are now in poverty than when the Conservatives were in power.


    Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, Canadians have never had it so bad, and Liberal insiders have never had it so good. We can take the Liberal trade minister as an example. She gave tens of thousands of dollars in contracts to her bestie while Canadians were lined up at food banks. She was at committee today and would not answer the question, when I asked her, if she would do the right thing, make restitution and pay Canadians back those ill-gotten gains.
    Here is another chance to answer the question. Will the minister repay Canadians the tens of thousands of dollars she gave to her friend?
    Madam Speaker, of course, the minister in question has taken responsibility and has apologized, but I have great difficulty when the member opposite says that Canadians have never had it worse.
    The reality is that we are in incredibly difficult times. We have lived through a global pandemic. There is a war going on in Ukraine. We are dealing with global inflation. However, the idea that this is the worst time Canadians have ever faced is offensive. Is he saying that these times are worse than the world wars? Is he saying this time is worse than the Great Depression?
    Canadians are resilient. They have risen in every moment, and when—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The hon. leader of the government has a few seconds remaining.


    Madam Speaker, these are the hardest times the world has gone through since the Second World War, and they can laugh about that, but the reality is that in every corner of this planet people are facing the most difficult and challenging times that have confronted humanity in a generation. The reality is that Canada is leading in that environment.


Tourism Industry

    Madam Speaker, the tourism sector made a strong comeback over the last year. I wonder what can be done—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!


    The disruption is getting very unruly. It is difficult to control the House and have a proper exchange of questions and answers when members cannot hear because they are shouting.
    Madam Speaker, when there is disorder on both sides of the House, does the member whose party is responsible for the disorder lose her question, if the Speaker has said that I have lost my—
    There is disorder on both sides right now, or there was.
    I will go back to the hon. member right after the member for Pontiac asks her question.


    Madam Speaker, tourism made a strong comeback last year. Fortunately, companies and tourists are coming back to Canada.
    Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance give us an update on the state of this sector that is so vital to our economy, particularly in rural communities?
    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Pontiac for her hard work and the work she does on the Standing Committee on Finance.
    It is true that last year we saw a huge increase in international tourists. In fact, tourism spending in Canada reached $20 billion in the third quarter. That is $20 billion in just three months. Those tourists are coming from abroad to buy what we have to offer.
    I would like to thank—
    The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.



    Madam Speaker, the government House leader would tell Canadians that they have never had it so good. His metric for how well the government is doing is that Canadians are not currently suffering a world war. His word salad will not fill their bellies, but what the actions of the government are doing is filling the pockets of Liberal insiders.
    If the minister will not do the right thing and pay Canadians back the tens of thousands she gave to Liberal insiders, then she needs to resign. That is what Canadians demand and deserve.
    Madam Speaker, I did not rise in this place and say that Canadians have never had it so good. What I said is that we are living through some of the most challenging times anywhere in the world and that it is small comfort when times are as difficult as this that our inflation in this country is less than that of the U.S., the U.K., the eurozone and the averages of the G7 and G20. It is small comfort that we are leading in terms of GDP growth, employment growth and female participation in the workforce. However, I say to those people that we are there for them with programs and services that lift them up.
    On the other side, the Conservatives are only doing one thing: amplifying—
    The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

    Madam Speaker, after eight years, everything in this country feels like it is broken, and we need look no further than Cornwall, Ontario, to find another example of Liberal incompetence. Months ago the Liberals signed contracts with local hotels for a major Roxham Road processing centre, but local partners on the ground received zero notice, consultation or resources. The Liberals have broken our immigration system, and their chaos is hurting my community.
    Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for this mess so we can fix what he broke?


    Madam Speaker, with respect to the resettlement effort and support for asylum seekers who are seeking safe haven in Canada, we want to ensure that we are working with all provinces so that the disproportionate pressures that happen at border communities are not felt in a single place.
    Regarding his allegation that the immigration system is somehow broken, I would like to correct the record. We have welcomed more than twice as many people coming into this country as permanent residents as the Conservatives did when they were in power. We have more than doubled our productivity. We have returned to the service standard for study permits, and we are close to it for work permits, family reunification and economic immigration. We need to continue to do the work—
    The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
    Madam Speaker, the minister is telling the people of Cornwall that there is absolutely no problem when it comes to his failed, broken system in this processing centre. Do not take my word for it; take the words of the mayor of Cornwall, who said this week, “The IRCC is not on site, they’re not here. They’re in Ottawa managing this file from an arm’s-length distance…to make decisions about it without consulting with us or hearing our side, that’s not effective”. I could not agree more.
    For the minister to paint such a rosy picture, when there is so much chaos happening in Cornwall because of his poor leadership, is tone deaf and out of touch. When will he fix the problem—
    The hon. Minister of Immigration.
    Madam Speaker, I am beginning to feel tired of the way the Conservatives begin their questions by talking down Canada. I am proud to be from this country. There is not a country I would rather call home. Are there challenges with communities that are welcoming asylum seekers right now? Absolutely there are. We have worked with members of the community in Cornwall in the past, and we will work with them in the future. The reality is that difficult decisions come across governments' desks, and it depends on how governments deal with them.
    We will continue to support communities that are trying to do their best to deal with an influx of people who are seeking a safe haven in this country. It is a proud tradition in Canada that we support some of the world's most vulnerable. We will not fail in our duties as the Conservatives would have us do.


    Madam Speaker, Canopy Growth, which is the largest private-sector employer in my riding, announced it is laying off half of its workforce. This is why: Canada's legal cannabis sector functions under crushing federal taxes and insanely high regulatory compliance costs. The result is that for consumers, legal cannabis costs about twice the price of illegal product. The government has made it impossible for legal producers to be competitive by closing this price gap.
    Having created this problem and a robust criminal sector while the legal sector languishes, how will the Liberals fix their own problem?
    Madam Speaker, of course many industries are experiencing supply chain disruptions. However, I want the member to know that we recognize the challenges and opportunities facing Canada's legal cannabis industry, and we continue to engage with stakeholders on a regular basis.
     We also understand that this news brings uncertainty for employees. Budget 2022 committed to launching a new cannabis strategy table that will support dialogue with businesses and stakeholders in the sector. This will provide an opportunity for the government to hear from industry leaders and to identify ways we can work together to grow that sector in Canada.

Indigenous Affairs

    Madam Speaker, connection to community is a critical element of aging well and aging with dignity, but a shortage of long-term care facilities on reserves leaves many people socially isolated and socially disconnected.
    Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services update the House on what the government is doing to support our indigenous elders in need of long-term care?
    Madam Speaker, Chief Maracle of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte said it best, “the strength of a nation is [best] determined by how...[we] [for our] most vulnerable”.
    Two weeks ago, along with Chief Maracle, I announced just over $30 million for the construction of a new elder care home in their community. It is an example of working together with indigenous communities to ensure indigenous elders are able to age in their communities and be surrounded by their language, culture and tradition.

Rail Transportation

    Madam Speaker, people on Vancouver Island have been left wondering whether the government deems public rail worth saving. A deadline was set by the B.C. Court of Appeal for the government to decide if the island rail corridor should continue to exist. That deadline is next month, and the government has not conducted consultation with the first nations whose territories the rail line runs through. Being unable to keep trains running on time is one thing, but sitting by while infrastructure falls into disrepair is another.
    Why have the Liberals been asleep at the switch, and why have they failed to conduct appropriate consultation?


    Madam Speaker, the hon. member on the opposite side is raising a very important issue. Canadians from coast to coast to coast deserve to have reliable infrastructure and to be able to commute from anywhere they live across this beautiful country. I look forward to working with him across the aisle to make sure that Canadians always receive the services that they deserve and need.


Official Languages

    Madam Speaker, after denying the decline of French in Canada, the Liberal member for Saint-Laurent doubled down by making misleading and unacceptable comments about Bill C-13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
    She is going against her own minister for the sole purpose of derailing this long-awaited bill that will better protect the French language across the country. Out of respect for all francophones, will the Prime Minister or the minister show some leadership and ask the member for Saint-Laurent to withdraw her remarks and provide an official apology in the House?
    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but what he said is not true. We are the first government to recognize the decline of French across the country and throughout Quebec. That is why it is important that we continue to move forward with this ambitious bill, which has teeth and will make a difference. It will give us the tools to address the decline of French across the country.
    Once again, we call on all members of the House to work together to ensure that Bill C-13 is passed as soon as possible. This is important for minority communities across the country.


Points of Order

Decorum in the House 

[Points of Order]
    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning decorum in the House. Like many members, you may have noticed a new behaviour that has crept into the House in the 44th Parliament that was previously not present to my notice.
    Madam Speaker, as you well know, members may rise to their feet to speak in the House when you recognize them and, conversely, members who have not been recognized should remain in their seat. Of course, the Speaker recognizes only one speaker at a time, and therefore only one member should be standing at a time.
    Lately, mostly during question period but not only during question period, some members, when they are asking multiple questions in a row, remain standing while the member to whom they have posed their questions has been recognized by the Speaker and is standing to answer the question. In other words, two members are standing at the same time, when only one has been recognized. At a minimum, this new behaviour is tantamount to interrupting the recognized speaker, but at worst, it has, at times, risen to the level of attempting to intimidate the recognized speaker.
    Another increasingly common variant of this behaviour is when a member, understandably eager to ask their question or to share their S.O. 31, is rising to their feet far too early, sometimes 30 to 60 seconds before being recognized to do so. This, too, is tantamount to interrupting the recognized member.
    This is a question of decorum in the House, as remaining standing while another member has been recognized is plainly disrespectful to the recognized member. I am asking for a ruling on the permissibility of two members standing while only one has been recognized and for appropriate direction to all members to rise to their feet only when recognized by the Speaker.
    This will be taken under advisement, but it is something that has been seen on both sides of the House.
    The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.
     Madam Speaker, this is relatively on the same point of order, although I would suggest that a member rising early prior to their statement or prior to their question is reasonable. I do believe, and this applies to all parties, that if a caucus is being disruptive, you, Madam Speaker, have the right to dock the question in question period. In fact, that applies to all caucuses.
    Second, I would suggest that you remind all parties that during question period, points of order are only allowed on a technical basis, such as problems with interpretation, and not procedurally. If you could remind all members, that would be welcomed.
    Nobody raised a point of order during this question period, and this matter will be taken under advisement.


[Routine Proceedings]



Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission

    It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, a certified copy of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.


    Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.


Criminal Code

     He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table today the mental health protection act. As members know, medically assisted suicide was legalized in Canada in 2016. Under Bill C-14, medical assistance in dying was expressly limited to capable adults who have an irremediable disease that causes enduring and intolerable suffering that cannot be alleviated, and when their natural death is reasonably foreseeable.
    At the time, the government and its supportive stakeholders assured Canadians that this would not lead to a slippery slope on which the scope of MAID would be continually be expanded to include other Canadians. Not surprisingly, in the intervening seven years, the government has expanded the scope of MAID by de facto extending its scope to those who are not dying, but who are living with disabilities.
    More recently, the government expanded MAID to include mentally ill persons and also signalled its intention to extend this right to mature minor children. Clearly, we are on the slippery slope many of us had warned about, and Canadians have a right to ask who is next. Will it be the drug addicted, the indigent, the homeless, or needy veterans? What about willing seniors who are tired of life? Where does it end?
    My bill would reverse this momentum and repeal the government's decision to extend MAID to the mentally ill. The evidence from mental health experts is very clear. There is no consensus in Canada that the mentally ill should be covered by Canada's medically assisted death regime. Issues of irremediability, competency and suicidality are not anywhere close enough to being resolved to justify this major policy shift in favour of death.
    Let me be clear: My bill does not, in any way, reverse the rest of Canada's MAID regime. Instead, it arrests Canada's slide down the slippery slope of assisted suicide, which so many of us had predicted would happen. I would respectfully ask that all of my parliamentary colleagues give thoughtful consideration to my bill, and join me in protecting and supporting the most vulnerable in our society.

    (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)



    Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I am tabling a petition on the immigration backlog. Petitioners are reminding the government that the backlog is over two million applications. They are specifically drawing the attention of the Government of Canada to seven immigration programs. I will not read them all, but I will draw members to some that are effecting my riding specifically.
     The service standard for international experience Canada class was 56 service days. Only 24% of applications met that standard. For the skilled trades program applications via express entry, at the time of the petition, 80% of those were supposed to be processed in 180 days. Only 8% overall met that standard. The third I will mention is the new parent and grandparent super visa applications have an 80% goal of meeting the service standard in 112 days, but only 41% of them met that standard.
    The petitioners are asking that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship update the immigration system to pave the way for efficient and streamlined processes to address Canada's ongoing needs.


Oil and Gas Industry  

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of folks across the Prairies, particularly in Alberta, who have had bad dealings with oil companies. Oil companies have abandoned their contaminated assets and have left vulnerable families, like the Jessa family in my home province of Alberta, with the bill. The companies are not cleaning it up. This petition calls for companies to be held accountable, but is also calling on the government to support those families in ensuring that the assets are cleaned up.

Canada Post Corporation   

     Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of the good people of Winnipegosis, who are forced to drive 40 minutes to pick up their mail after Canada Post closed its local post office multiple times. These rural residents are feeling punished for simply living in rural Canada. These valid concerns are amplified for seniors, persons with disabilities and those who do not have the ability to travel.
    They are calling on the Liberal government to provide a detailed explanation of why this essential service was closed, despite anticipated staffing shortages. They are calling on the government to work with Canada Post and the Minister of Rural Economic Development to ensure that these temporary post office closures in rural areas are not normalized. I support the people of Winnipegosis.

Ship Recycling  

    Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to table this petition on behalf of residents of Union Bay on Vancouver Island.
    They want to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the significant risks to workers and the environment associated with ship recycling due to the presence of a wide variety of hazardous materials in end-of-life marine vessels.
    They cite that Canada, unlike other jurisdictions, lacks standards on ship recycling and unregulated ship recycling activities, which are putting our oceans, coastal communities and workers at risk, and that we lack domestic oversight of ship recycling and disposal of end-of-like marine vessels. This frustrates Canada's ability to ensure compliance with its international obligations under the Basel Convention.
    They are calling for action to develop enforceable federal standards to reduce the negative environmental impacts of ship recycling; to provide assistance through loans or grants to ensure we have a reputable ship recycling program; and to develop a strategy for recycling end-of-life federally owned marine vessels.
    There is an environmental disaster happening in our riding. They are calling for action.

Falun Gong 

    Madam Speaker, Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that advocates meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of openness, compassion and tolerance.
    In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intense nationwide campaign of persecution to eradicate Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres and prisons, where torture and abuse are common. Thousands have died.
    The petitioners are in part asking us to publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Questions on the Order Paper

    Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
    The Speaker: Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]


Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

    The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for her advocacy on this issue.
    I am wondering if she could elaborate on her comments with respect to inauthentic visa letters.


    Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague asked this question. There was another item in the Globe and Mail article today that suggests Senator McPhedran, in her affidavit, may have submitted information about what were deemed to be 640 inauthentic letters to the government in September 2021.
    During that time, my office communicated with IRCC, GAC and other officials over 30 times between August 2021 and July 2022 on the file that pertains to this issue. Not once did they confirm or deny that these visa letters were authentic or inauthentic.
    This story raises all sorts of concerns about who knew what in the government and at what time. At the very least, if this is true, my constituent missed the opportunity to apply for a real program. How many other people did this happen to?
    I implore colleagues of all political stripes to work to get the ministers, the former ministers and the staff named in this affidavit in front of committee or in front of the House to find out what really went on. This has huge implications for the fairness, equity and integrity of our immigration system.
    Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about Bill S-8.
    For the benefit of my constituents who may be interested in following this, this is an act that started its life in the other place last spring, a month or so before Parliament rose for the summer. We are talking about Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Last year the senators recognized a gap in the law when it comes to the imposition of sanctions against other countries, organizations or individuals for breaches of international peace and security, as well as human rights violations.
    The senators fast-tracked this legislation. It is not contentious; I believe that it has support from all parties in this House. However, unfortunately, it has been parked in the House of Commons since early fall; here we are finally, in February, debating it. What was the delay? What is the holdup? This needs to be done.
    Bill S-8 was introduced around the time of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, an unjustified and unjust war, as well as a blatant violation of international law. The timing of this legislation is not coincidental. It is in response to the illegal invasion by Russia of our friends in Ukraine. The legislation is long overdue.
    What does it do? Canada, on the advice of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, can and does impose sanctions against certain states or individuals. This is pursuant to two Canadian laws: the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, better known as the Magnitsky law.
    Under the Special Economic Measures Act, Canada can impose sanctions for grave breaches of international peace, gross and systemic human rights violations, or actions of corruption. Under the Magnitsky law, Canada can impose sanctions on foreign nationals responsible for, or complicit in, extrajudicial killings, torture or gross human rights violations.
    I think some background on the Magnitsky act would be useful. There was an American investor by the name of Bill Browder who worked and invested in Russia's economy after the end of the Cold War and after Russia opened up its economy to the world. Mr. Browder made a lot of money, and this drew the attention of the Russian government, particularly President Vladimir Putin. Mr. Browder's Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, also drew the attention and the ire of the Russian authorities. Eventually, Mr. Magnitsky died in a Russian prison, clearly the victim of an extrajudicial killing, torture and a gross violation of human rights, to pick up on the language of the Magnitsky law.
    Mr. Browder escaped Russia, and he used his influence to convince first the United States and then other countries, including Canada, to adopt what has become known as Magnitsky's law. This law, different of course and unique in each country, gives the government of said country the right and ability to impose financial sanctions against foreign nationals responsible for or complicit in such horrific actions. That is what the Magnitsky act does.
    We had Mr. Browder appear before this Parliament's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on February 10, 2022. One should note the timing. This was exactly two weeks before Putin's Russia invaded Ukraine. We did not know that was going to happen, although there was every indication that Putin would invade Ukraine. He had done it before, in 2014, shortly after Russia hosted the Winter Olympics in nearby Sochi. At that time, Putin waved goodbye to the world and then ordered his tanks into the Crimean Peninsula. Sadly, the world looked the other way.
    Seven years later, in 2022, Putin was again flexing his muscles. Again, he was hoping and expecting that the world would be looking the other way. That was the context when Mr. Browder was giving his testimony in front of the committee.


    Here is a sample quote from his testimony:
    As we look forward to what to do about this situation, my prescription is to make a list of the 50 biggest oligarchs who look after Putin's money. There's no mystery as to who these people are...and we hit these people with Magnitsky sanctions.
    We start with five before any invasion to show Putin we're serious. We then tell him that he has 10 days to pull back from the border or we hit him with another five. If he invades, we go after the rest of the 40. I believe this would stop Putin in his tracks and he wouldn't invade Ukraine.
    Three months later, on May 17, 2022, Mr. Browder appeared before another committee, the public safety committee, as part of its Russia study. Again, members can note the timing. This meeting was taking place a few months after Putin invaded Ukraine. At that meeting, this question, or challenge, was put to Mr. Browder: “Clearly, sir, something went wrong. Either the [Canadian] government didn't take your advice or you underestimated Putin's propensity for recklessness.”
    This was part of Mr. Browder's answer:
     [Putin] had looked at our conduct, and when I say “our”, I mean Canada, the United States, the EU and the U.K. He looked at our conduct after the invasion of Georgia—nothing; after the illegal annexation of Crimea—effectively nothing; after MH17 was shot down—nothing; and, after the Salisbury poisonings—nothing. He was of the opinion that we weren't going to do anything if he invaded Ukraine.
    Historians will debate whether we and our allies acted soon enough, used our sanctioning tools aggressively enough or did everything in our power to convince Putin to back off. Maybe we could have done more, and with the benefit of hindsight we probably could have done more and should have done more, but I want to be clear that it is not as if we are doing nothing.
    After the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, Canada, using the existing Special Economic Measures Act, imposed sanctions against more than 1,000 individuals and 241 entities linked to ongoing violations of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our Magnitsky Law, parenthetically, came into force some time later, in 2017.
    Could we have done more to help our Ukrainian friends? Probably, but today we are doing the right thing. It is a small thing, but it is the right thing. With Bill S-8, we are amending three other acts and expanding certain regulations, all pertaining to how we deal with refugees, and in particular refugees who, when they present themselves at our border, are discovered to be subject to sanctions under one or another of our sanction laws.
    The Minister of Public Safety put it this way: “Banning close associates and key supporters of Putin's regime, including those responsible for this unprovoked aggression from entering our country is one of the many ways in which we're holding Russia accountable for its crimes.” We can argue about the veracity of the statement that Canada acted in “many ways” to hold Russia accountable. That is a debate for another day.
    I would wrap it up with the following comment. I and all members of Parliament, I believe, have been banned from entering Russia. After this bill, Bill S-8, passes, Mr. Putin and his oligarchs would be banned from entering Canada, as if they would ever risk being arrested and tried for war crimes.
    This is important legislation. It is non-controversial. It has the support of the Conservative Party. We have always been in support of the decisive use of our Magnitsky act to sanction international criminals. It needs to be passed soon, and it needs to receive royal assent to close the gap.


    Madam Speaker, I was encouraged by many of the thoughts the member expressed to the House, and I would concur that at the end of the day there is a powerful statement to be made by the passage, with what appears to be unanimous support, of the principles of the legislation.
    I just want to ask the member to provide his comments in regard to the following. When we have legislation of this nature and it ultimately passes, or at least the principles of the legislation, it sends a wonderful and powerful message abroad, a message that people need to hear, which is that there is a consequence to regimes that behave against Canadian values. Would he not agree?
    Madam Speaker, yes, the Magnitsky act sends a powerful signal to the world that Canada stands up for human rights. If we read the story about Sergei Magnitsky and how he was mistreated for doing the right thing, then I believe the world will support us as we try to do our best to support human rights around the world. It sends a good, strong signal. I am happy this is one act that, and I am assuming this, we can pass unanimously in the House, and that too would send a strong message.
    Madam Speaker, as mentioned, Conservatives are supportive of this legislation, but the challenge we have is the difference between words and implementation. I think of how the terrorist Omar Khadr was given $11 million, and we rolled out the carpet. He killed an American sergeant in Afghanistan. These are the problems we have. Again, with Iran, the Liberals have the right words, but not the actions with respect to the Islamic regime to bring in these actions and call the guards on these terrorist organizations.
    I wonder if the member could make some comments about what the Liberals say and do with respect to following through with legislation.
    Madam Speaker, my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge is absolutely right. Just because we have a good law does not mean that it is administered properly. He raised a couple of examples about citizens of this or other countries who go abroad to be involved in terrorist actions and then come home again and how they are treated.
    It is a problem in Canada as well. Not only are ISIS war brides coming home, but also the men who were actively involved in working with the ISIS army, and they apparently have a right to come back to Canada. How are we going to treat them? Are they going to be charged here under our criminal laws? Do we have evidence available to properly prosecute these people who have committed crimes abroad? Are we going to be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? These are the real challenges that face Canada while living in a dangerous world.


    Madam Speaker, the member brought up in his intervention how we would treat people who are returning from overseas who have potentially committed serious war crimes or crimes against humanity, so I wonder if he can elaborate on this matter.
    We have individuals who either fought for, fought with or are sympathizers of ISIS, such as Daesh, a proto-state across the Syrian-Iraqi border, which committed many war crimes and crimes against humanity. We now have families who are returning from a specific camp, which is not too far from Al-Hol, and there are about 70,000 POWs and families being held there. These Canadians are being returned to Canada and being charged with offences by the RCMP for travelling overseas to join a terrorist organization and for membership in a terrorist organization.
    Beyond that, it is very difficult for the Canadian government to prove crimes that were conducted overseas because the collection of evidence may not be ideal, the witnesses might be dead or we just may not know who they are, so I wonder if the member can elaborate on that, because that is part of the sanctions regime as well.
    Some of these individuals should be sanctioned, and others are not being sanctioned because we do not know they are members of these organizations. This is where the difficulty lies. We can only make someone inadmissible if we know what they are being made inadmissible for, and part of this legislation will need a lot of intelligence-gathering.
    I am just putting a lot of ideas on the table for the member to add to the discussion.
    Madam Speaker, indeed, this creates a big challenge for Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that so-called ISIS brides must be returned to Canada, and furthermore, that even men who fought for ISIS or Daesh, if Canadian citizens, have the right to come back to Canada pursuant to section 6 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the section of our charter that states that we all have the right to stay in Canada, leave Canada or, if we are out of Canada, to come back to Canada.
    The Supreme Court of Canada has recently decided that these ISIS warriors have that right. They will be arrested as soon as they land at a Canadian airport, but as the member indicated, where does the proof come from, where does the evidence come from to convict these people under our Criminal Code? The evidence is probably overseas. The witnesses are certainly overseas, and the witnesses are not going to be co-operative. We do not have the power to subpoena witnesses from overseas. This is a challenge for the government, and we are looking forward to seeing how it is going to resolve that problem.
    Madam Speaker, I will continue on a different track. Within Bill S-8 there are provisions for persons to be able to challenge being put on a sanctions list, but they are not allowed to appeal being found inadmissible to Canada if they happen to be on a sanctions list.
    During the debate on the sanctions for the victims and the Sergei Magnitsky act, there was a provision put in to ensure that a person who was to be listed would have the right to redress and could actually challenge the fact that they had been put on the list.
    In this piece of legislation, one of the provisions specifically says that one cannot appeal the fact that one has been found inadmissible, because the idea is that the process has already taken place in the sanctions regime. I wonder if the member would comment on how there would be no right of appeal if one is found inadmissible to Canada under IRPA, which would be expanded to all those who find themselves on one of the sanctions lists that Canada keeps, and that they would need to seek redress for sanctions but not for inadmissibility.
     Does he see this as a problem or as an opportunity to expedite the deportation of individuals who find themselves in Canada unlawfully?
    Madam Speaker, my colleague's questions are becoming more challenging. Yes, indeed the intent of the legislation we are talking about today is to prohibit people who have been sanctioned from entering Canada. There are some people who have been sanctioned, maybe just because they live in a state that we have sanctioned, and they do have the right to appeal, to have their case heard and to convince Immigration Canada to allow them to come into Canada. I do not know how these cases are going to be worked out if we do not have the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that people are actually guilty of crimes.



    Is the House ready for the question?
    Some hon. members: Question.
    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion.


    If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
    Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote, please.
    Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, February 13, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
    The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.
    Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House at this time, you would find unanimous consent to call it 1:30 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

Private Members' Business

[Private Members' Business]


Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada Act

    I wish to inform the House that following the passing of our esteemed colleague, Bill S-208 is without a sponsor. Therefore, the motion for second reading cannot be moved at this time.
    Pursuant to Standing Order 42(2), this item is placed at the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
    If no further action is taken by the House before the bill is considered again, it will be dropped from the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(c).
    It being 12:48 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
    (The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.)
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer