Hansard
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 2844
View Adam Chambers Profile
CPC (ON)
View Adam Chambers Profile
2022-12-12 12:36 [p.10764]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.
It is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber to speak to legislation. Today, we are talking about Bill S-8 to ensure that foreign nationals who are subject to economic sanctions are not able to enter our country.
Since we are also talking about human rights, I did want to take a moment to address an incident that happened this weekend to a very important person to Parliament, Irwin Cotler, who was at the premier of a documentary of his life and tireless work for human rights across the world. He was openly harassed and criticized at this event, which disrupted it and made quite a mockery of the whole thing. It made people very uncomfortable. Everyone should be open to public criticism and debate, as Mr. Cotler has always been and has never shied away from, but we are losing our decency as a society if we think it is acceptable to treat fellow humans this way.
In many circumstances, criticisms of accomplished Jewish people are often rooted in some form of anti-Semitism. It is okay for us to disagree with each other and we should encourage that at all times, but free speech also comes with a responsibility to treat one another with respect and decency.
We are now 10 months into Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, but it was back in 2014 when Russia took actions and annexed Crimea. This egregious step was a blatant violation of international law. These attacks have caused the widespread devastation of Ukrainian infrastructure and property and the deaths of a number of civilians, notably women and children. These actions are a continuation of accelerated aggressive steps taken by Russia against Ukraine, and they threaten the international rules-based order. Canada responded, in part, through the use of economic measures, as did many of our allies. These sanctions are contained in the Special Economic Measures Act, and they affect about 1,000 individuals in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
The bill we have before us seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, as we just heard the minister refer to it, in order to do several things, as I understand it.
First, the bill seeks to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions in order to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression.
Second, it proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country, but also those imposed on an entity or a person. This is important given we have listed individuals as part of our economic sanctions, not just countries.
Third, it would expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act.
Last, it would amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, rather than the immigration division, will have the authority to issue a removal order on the grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under a new paragraph of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That will provide Canada with the needed ability to better link government action with economic sanctions for those who are seeking to come into Canada and experience a wonderful life here.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act defines when a person is inadmissible to Canada and establishes the applicable criteria for all foreign nationals and permanent residents who seek to enter or remain in Canada. However, its inadmissibility provisions do not align with the basis for imposing the majority of economic sanctions. This means that an individual who has been sanctioned economically can still show up to Canada and claim refugee protection. They are then able to be here in Canada to experience the life we have built. This is quite clearly a loophole that undermines confidence in our system and laws, and Canadians will not accept that these sanctioned individuals get to remain in Canada.
This loophole matters not only to Russian actors. Let us not forget about other countries with citizens who have been subjected to some of these sanctions: Belarus, Myanmar, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea and, of course, Iran.
With Iran, I will also mention that we should be doing much more than we are. We just heard an exchange between members of the opposition and the minister on that front. It is important to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. That was the will of the House constituted back in 2018 and was again reaffirmed by the House just recently. We must act much more forcefully with respect to the IRGC. Canadians expect that of us.
Canada is often behind when it comes to some of these international actions. This is becoming part of our international reputation, and it is not a good one. We have been late with Magnitsky sanctions. We often wait to see where the political winds are blowing. We are too careful not to offend anyone.
Let us consider the government's official response to the Iranian protests, as we have discussed, or the treatment of the Uighur population by the Chinese Communist Party. We have been calling on the government to do more and it continually shies away from its responsibility. We are not being taken as seriously by the international community as we once were.
All too often, Canada's position is not substantive and not principle-based. It is slow to act, and often with half measures. Take, for example, the government's frenetic position on China. If we do not like the government's policy on China, we just have to ask another minister and we will eventually get the answer we like. Often the government is caught without a plan and requires significant public shaming to get some action.
Let us take, for example, the international commitment to fight money laundering through introducing a beneficial ownership registry and regime. This is exactly connected to preventing individuals who are sanctioned economically from hiding their assets across the world. Canada has one of the weakest laws for identifying assets in beneficial ownership. We are one of the only countries that has yet to introduce the beneficial ownership registry. The government promised to do it all the way back in 2019, then it said it would not get to it until 2025. Now it says that it will be bringing it in at the end of next year, but we are still waiting to see the legislation.
Yes, the government has agreed to fast-track it, but there is still much more to do. All the other countries are moving so much further ahead of us when it comes to fighting global money laundering. Again, it is connected to this legislation because these individuals have assets all across the world. It might be the case that we will not allow sanctioned individuals to come into Canada now, but those individuals could still hide their assets here because we do not have a way of finding out who owns what in our country. We need to do much more, much more quickly on this front.
Once again, the government says all the right things, but fails to execute on much of it. Yes, we see some action here, but I guess, as the saying goes, a broken clock is right at least twice a day.
I look forward to the committee discussions on Bill S-8. It is important legislation. We have already heard members in the chamber on the opposition side ask why it is taking so long. We look forward to moving the legislation through to committee, addressing perhaps some of the amendments that were brought forward by the NDP. It is an important step for our country to put in place measures that make it harder for individuals who have violated human rights and international laws to come here, to remain in a wonderful country that we have built and get the advantages of the political and legal systems that we have built.
It is with great pleasure that I speak in favour of the legislation and I look forward to it going to committee.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2022-12-08 14:14 [p.10663]
Mr. Speaker, border communities have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic and have yet to fully recover. Partly this is due to the shutdown of NEXUS centres, which has created an over 300,000-person backlog.
NEXUS allows commuters, workers and travellers into the U.S. and Canada to cross rapidly, which is essential to the trade between both of our countries, the largest economic relationship in the world.
In addition, the Windsor border blockade was a threat to our national economy. It cost municipalities nearly $6 million in policing costs to remove it. The federal government has yet to reimburse the city, leaving local taxpayers on the hook for a national security action and thus becoming a delinquent deadbeat.
Even on Bill C-21, the Liberals have demonstrated ineptitude by not providing the necessary resources for our CBSA officers to stop gun smuggling.
Ignoring our border communities is poor short-term policy that will have long-term consequences for our economy.
View Andrew Scheer Profile
CPC (SK)
View Andrew Scheer Profile
2022-12-07 15:15 [p.10558]
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the House leaders, and I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
Whereas, protesters in China who are fighting for basic human rights and freedoms have been using an Airdrop feature on iPhones to avoid government censors, and
Whereas, Apple has announced its decision to disable that feature solely for phones in China, and
Whereas, such a move will make it more difficult for the protesters to avoid the authoritarian restrictions on communications, and
Whereas, other tech giants like Google have long collaborated with the Chinese regime in its policies to control online content and communication,
Therefore, this house condemn the decision by Apple and other tech giants for their complicity in the crackdown against peaceful protesters in China.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
View Brian Masse Profile
NDP (ON)
View Brian Masse Profile
2022-12-06 17:50 [p.10527]
Madam Speaker, speaking of increased inflation, the Ambassador Bridge is close to me, and the illegal blockade of the Ambassador Bridge saw the vast majority of outsiders illegally shut down Canada's number one infrastructure and trade route to the United States. In fact, 40% of Canada's daily trade occurs there.
I am wondering whether the Conservative Party supports the City of Windsor's request to be made whole given the $5.7 million it cost to pay for police officers and to keep people safe during this illegal blockade. It is very important, because now that is thrust upon municipal taxpayers. Constituents could not get to doctor appointments, including children. It was significant.
I am wondering where the Conservative Party is with that request of $5.7 million, because the cost of the illegal occupation, mostly by outsiders, is now on the backs of municipal taxpayers.
View Michael Cooper Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michael Cooper Profile
2022-12-06 17:51 [p.10527]
Madam Speaker, at the end of his question, the member for Windsor West spoke about the backs of taxpayers. If he had the backs of taxpayers, he would not be supporting the tripling of the carbon tax. He would not be supporting payroll tax hikes. He would not be supporting measures that are making life more unaffordable. He certainly would not be supporting the $20 billion in inflationary deficit spending that is exacerbating the cost of living crisis.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2022-11-29 14:58 [p.10167]
Mr. Speaker, in a Radio-Canada interview on Sunday about the invocation of the Emergencies Act, the Minister of Public Safety defended himself, stating that the act has some shortcomings and needs to be updated.
That was a candid admission that his government knew it had not met the threshold for invoking the act, but did so anyway. In a country governed by the rule of law, the end does not justify the means.
Do the Liberals acknowledge and take responsibility for the fact that the precedent they set now authorizes any future government to suspend individual freedoms as it sees fit?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2022-11-29 14:59 [p.10167]
Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague opposite, but no matter how many times he says something that is not true, he cannot make it true.
Nothing our government did suspended Canadians' rights. We made an important decision in order to protect Canada's economy and keep Canadians safe. We were transparent at every stage of the decision-making process, including before the commission last week, and we look forward to Justice Rouleau's report, which will provide answers to all these questions.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2022-11-29 14:59 [p.10167]
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the precedent that the father of the Emergencies Act, former minister Perrin Beatty, was concerned about.
When he appeared before the committee, he said that once the act has been used for the first time, the temptation will be to use it for other crises. He recalled that he had consciously included the specific criteria that must be met in order to counteract the arbitrariness and abuses that the old War Measures Act allowed for. The Liberals flouted these criteria when they invoked the act.
Can the minister tell us what will prevent any future governments from using it arbitrarily to suspend individual freedoms?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2022-11-29 15:00 [p.10167]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows full well that all the criteria were properly met. We respected the rights of all Canadians in an important process. We also thought it was a good idea, when we established the criteria with the Rouleau commission, to ask the commission for suggestions and opinions on the possibility of modernizing the Emergencies Act, to listen to the experts. That is why we are looking forward to Justice Rouleau's recommendations.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2022-11-28 14:24 [p.10078]
Mr. Speaker, in the recently published government strategy on the Indo-Pacific, it says, “In areas of profound disagreement, we will challenge China, including when it engages in coercive behaviour [or] ignores human rights obligations”. There is a wave of protests across China right now, and there are now reports of government crackdowns against those protests.
If the government is serious about what it put in its strategy, then will it indicate to Beijing that the peaceful protests should be allowed to go ahead and that any crackdown should be resisted?
View Maninder Sidhu Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Maninder Sidhu Profile
2022-11-28 14:25 [p.10078]
Mr. Speaker, we are following the unfolding events in China very closely. We remain in close contact with our embassy and consulate.
We believe in freedom of expression at home and abroad, including in China, and that protesters should be able to peacefully protest and share their views without fearing for their safety. We will continue to follow the events very closely.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2022-11-28 14:37 [p.10081]
Mr. Speaker, the government is still not being transparent about its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.
CSIS told us that the convoy was not a threat to national security. We know the convoy did not fit the definition of a national emergency in the act.
The government claims to have based its decision on one single document, an obscure legal opinion that the Minister of Justice is hiding. As a lawyer, the minister might be bound by solicitor-client privilege, but his client, the government, is not.
Are we honestly supposed to believe the government would hide a legal opinion that provided ample justification for invoking the act?
View Marco Mendicino Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, let me just remind everyone that what happened last winter was unprecedented. The impact on workers, families, and everyone was unprecedented. After extensive consultation with law enforcement and other levels of government, we made a necessary decision.
Last week, a number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, testified. Justice Rouleau says he now has all the evidence he needs to submit a final report. We will continue to be transparent about this very important decision.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2022-11-28 14:39 [p.10081]
Mr. Speaker, if the legal opinion fully vindicated the Liberals, they would have printed out hundreds of copies and distributed them to the media.
The Liberals saw those legal opinions. They read the act, they saw that they did not meet the threshold to invoke the act, but they invoked it anyway.
It was precisely to prevent this kind of thing that there was a shift from the old War Measures Act to the Emergencies Act. It was supposed to prevent any government from saying, “Just watch me”, and arbitrarily suspending individual freedoms.
Does the government realize that, in doing so, it has set a dangerous precedent?
Results: 1 - 15 of 2844 | Page: 1 of 190

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data