44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 22, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, many expressive words come to mind as I rise to speak to Bill C‑228 today in the House, a few hours before voting at third reading. My words are “privilege”, “honour” and “pride”.
Why? As parliamentarians we play a part in history. We have the opportunity to do something historic, namely to correct an injustice that has existed for far too many years by protecting retirement funds, the nest eggs of workers and retirees, in the event of a bankruptcy.
I do not think there should be any hesitation tomorrow when it comes time to vote. We should all stand up unanimously in the House to tell all workers and the unions that have been lobbying for years to convince parliamentarians to remedy this situation that we will finally do them justice. That is my plea today.
I would also like to commend the Conservative member for Sarnia—Lambton and thank her for her bill and for the work that was done on it across party lines with the NDP and my colleague from Manicouagan. It is really something when we are able to work together to advance the rights of workers. I really encourage the Liberals to join us. I heard the parliamentary secretary say in his speech earlier that he was still undecided about tomorrow's vote. What is there to be undecided about? There should be no hesitation on this issue.
If even just one company were to go bankrupt today, the human suffering would be terrible. A company going bankrupt results in job losses, relocations, unemployment and complete reorganization. When, on top of that, a company puts itself under creditor protection and pension plans are insolvent or have not been properly funded, retirees are faced with enormous losses to their pensions.
Consider the Cliffs mine on the north shore, or Nortel, or Aveos. There are situations like these—and this is a long list—where workers and retirees have seen all the savings they socked away during their working years melt away like snow on a sunny day.
We must remember one fundamental thing. Retirement is a deferred salary, compensation that is deferred until retirement. When a company goes bankrupt and that fund is unprotected, thousands of workers are put at risk. This concerns many workers in Canada.
I also really want to commend all the work done by my colleague, the member for Manicouagan. When Cliffs' mine on the north shore went bankrupt, she went to bat, took a stand and worked hard to introduce a bill that would protect pensioners and to ensure that this never happens again. There was one hour of debate, but at least there was debate, because, at the time, the government was against this idea. It made people aware of the fact that this should never happen again. Since then, there have been many such bills, but not one of them has passed and actually fixed the problem.
The latest bill on this subject was introduced by my colleague from Manicouagan in 2021. It was Bill C‑372, which passed at second reading and received the committee's unanimous approval. Unfortunately, it died on the Order Paper because a pointless election was called.
I said the passage of this bill would be a historic event. Fortunately, battles for pension funds are already being waged in the context of collective bargaining for unionized workers. This often causes conflict, because employers would like to make cuts to pension funds.
How many battles, strikes and disputes have hinged not only on pay, but also on pension funds? This is a difficult struggle for workers. Some workers have been left to fend for themselves after giving a company 30 or 40 years of their lives and contributing to a retirement fund. This kind of thing happens because we have never been aware of their reality or done enough to take a stand and fix the problem.
We have an important role to play as parliamentarians, because it is up to elected officials and the government to change things and bring in a safety net for our workers. The purpose of this bill is not to make pension plans priority creditors, but rather preferred creditors. The status of preferred creditor for wages is currently maintained in the event of bankruptcy.
I really must emphasize that there is no reason to hesitate. I often hear the Liberals say here in the House that they are there for the workers, that they will never let them down and that they want to protect their pension funds. Well, now is the time to walk the talk. Beyond the rhetoric, if they really want to protect workers, it is important to strengthen labour rights and protect pension funds in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy. That is what needs to be done. This should not even be a question.
It is also important to pass anti-scab legislation. Workers have been calling for this for years. It should have been brought in years ago. Labour disputes persist because, once again, employers under federal jurisdiction take advantage of the current situation to hire scabs, and this keeps the disputes going. One day, we are going to have to stand up for workers on this issue as well. It is time to stop consulting and start taking action.
Employment Insurance also needs to be reformed. The Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers and major labour organizations regularly come to the Hill to lobby to talk to parliamentarians about the reality of the working world today and to convince them to fix the situation. I do not even understand why the government is still dragging its feet on this.
The bill to protect retirement funds seeks to provide a guarantee in the event of misfortune such as an economic crisis, a recession or even a pandemic. In such situations, there are losses. In the case of Cliffs Natural Resources, even though the United Steelworkers managed to get a bit of money to the North Shore through legal means, pensions were still slashed by 9%.
A worker or retiree who is currently 80 is not going to go back to work. They end up using all of their savings just to survive. We cannot leave a single person in such a situation.
Canada is known for protecting basic rights and workers rights in the event of a bankruptcy. We have to protect their nest egg. I think it will be to our credit to adopt this bill unanimously. I want to acknowledge all the unions and every parliamentarian who decided to stand up and make this possible.
1120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important bill today.
As a left-leaning progressive politician and union man, it is really important for me to be here in the House to support the initiative of the member who introduced this private member's bill. This initiative is completely in line with the values of the NDP, which has been the political party of workers since its foundation.
We have always been there to fight to give workers decent working conditions, decent work schedules, decent insurance, and adequate and decent wages so that they and their families and children can have a good quality of life.
With that perspective, the fight to protect people's retirement plans and pensions when a business goes bankrupt has always been a major concern for the NDP, as the working class party and the labour party. This is not the first time we have debated this issue. I must point out the work of NDP colleagues in the previous caucus who fought for this, who were pioneers and who worked very hard.
I am thinking of Chris Charlton, Wayne Marston and Scott Duvall, who, before retiring from political life, took up this cause. All the work done by my current colleagues in the NDP caucus and past colleagues has ensured that today we are about to arrive at solution that, although not perfect, is positive.
However, I cannot help but point out that when Chris Charlton, Wayne Marston and Scott Duvall introduced similar bills to protect the rights of pensioners, the Conservative Party systematically voted against them.
Today, we find ourselves in a new situation. I am pleased to note that the Conservative Party seems to have gone on the road to Damascus and seen the light. They have had a change of heart, and I hope that it is not being opportunistic in order to portray itself to voters as the friend of workers for the next election, but that it is something more deeply rooted and serious.
I always welcome spontaneous conversions, but I also remember that, when he was a minister in Stephen Harper's government, the Leader of the Opposition was one of the harshest critics of workers' rights. He levied sustained, systematic attacks against worker and union movements with bills such as C‑377 and C‑525, which would have weakened or even wiped out unions in Canada and Quebec. That is always on my mind, so I am always a little apprehensive, a little suspicious because, as a minister, he repeatedly attacked the union movement that stands up for workers' rights. I think people need to be aware and keep that in mind right now. Nevertheless, I applaud the work of the Conservative Party member who introduced this bill, which the NDP obviously supports because it is about time.
We have seen extremely tragic situations where people who dedicated their lives to a business, to a company, who set money aside, wound up in extremely difficult, trying situations when their company went bankrupt.
For example, when Sears went bankrupt, people in Quebec, Ontario and western Canada saw their pensions drop by 20%, 25% or 30% per month. These people lost hundreds of dollars because they were not priority creditors under the law. Bankers and investors took precedence over the workers who had, in some cases, devoted their entire lives to these companies and counted on them. This is not a question of charity, a gift to these workers. It is their money. They set aside wages for years, decades, to cover their golden years. It is their money.
It is good that today, as parliamentarians in the House of Commons, we can act soon to help these people, to protect them and to avoid dramatic situations like those we have seen with Sears and many other companies.
I will tell a quick personal story. I was a teenager when my grandfather died. I am from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, and my grandfather Urgel worked at Singer for 44 years. Singer was the big factory that drew people to the town for work. It employed thousands of people. My grandfather worked there for 44 years and then he retired. A few years later, Singer went bankrupt. Not only did it go bankrupt, but its executives took off with the pension fund. Those folks just took the money and ran.
The Singer pensioners had to fight in court for years. They had to hire lawyers to get some of their money back. Unfortunately, by the end of the long legal proceedings, my grandfather, like many of his co-workers, had died. My grandmother did finally receive a small portion of the pension that Singer had stolen from them. This is just a family example, not a personal one, because it did not affect me. However, I was told this story, and it really did affect my family. The fact that no one had any protection at the time, the fact that the workers were not considered priority creditors ahead of the investors and bankers, really affected my family.
The NDP chooses to put people first and stand up for them ahead of the banks, and we are not afraid that people are going to stop investing in Canada and that the sky is going to fall because of it. In fact, I think we can go even further. When the rules of the game are known and they are the same for everyone, then investors can make informed investments, knowing what the rules are, what the consequences of bankruptcy will be and who will be paid first because it is their money first and foremost.
The bill could have been improved. My NDP colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, tried to do so by proposing an amendment in committee to protect not only pensions and retirement plans, but also severance pay. Oddly enough, the committee chair ruled that the amendment was out of order, that it fell outside the scope of the bill. However, this friendly amendment had been welcomed by the member of Parliament who is is responsible for this bill. It is therefore rather odd that the Liberal chair of the committee would reject a friendly amendment, which seemed to me to be perfectly in order since it concerned the rights of workers in the event of a company's bankruptcy. It was done in exactly the same spirit, and the majority of the committee members agreed with the amendment.
That decision was upheld by a Speaker's ruling. The NDP tried to pass a unanimous consent motion to undo the Speaker's ruling, which is something that can be done and is well within the rules. Unfortunately, some Liberal members refused to overturn the Speaker's ruling, refused to respect the will of the committee, and refused to protect the rights of workers when it comes to severance pay. Usually, in the House, we do not know who said no. However, oddly enough, the member for Winnipeg North said he was not the only person who said “no”. In saying that, he himself admitted, as the member for Winnipeg North, that he had said no to this request from the NDP for unanimous consent to respect the will of the majority of committee members. However, he never explained why he, as the member for Winnipeg North, or why the Liberal Party members were against protecting severance pay in the event of bankruptcy.
For a party that claims to be a friend of unions and a friend of workers, that is rather odd and contradictory. I look forward to hearing the member for Winnipeg North explain to us why he opposed this measure when he is a democrat and respects the will of the committee. While the three opposition parties agreed on this amendment, he said no in the House and opposed workers' rights. I look forward to hearing the member for Winnipeg North explain why.
1339 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to my colleague's bill, Bill C-228. I would like to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for introducing this bill and providing me with the opportunity to participate in this debate.
This bill comes at an important time for Canadians. Bill C-228 seeks to protect the pensions of workers in the private sector so that when a company goes bankrupt, pensioners receive the benefits they have worked long and hard to receive. It combines elements from previously introduced bills and would do three things. First, it would require that an annual report on the solvency of pension funds be tabled in the House of Commons. Second, it would provide mechanisms for companies to transfer funds to keep their pension funds solvent. Third, in the event that a company does go bankrupt, pensions would be paid out ahead of large creditors and executive bonuses.
For better clarity, not only does the bill seek to ensure that pension funds remain solvent by requiring annual reporting that demonstrates the pension funds are fully funded, but it would protect Canadian workers' pensions, as it creates mechanisms to help companies keep their pension plans solvent. Should a company's pension fund become insolvent, they will be able to transfer money into the pension fund without any tax implications. Encouraging companies to keep their pension funds solvent and providing them mechanisms that help them to achieve that is something that ultimately helps and protects working Canadians.
The solvency of pension funds is especially important now, as we are in a cost of living crisis. Seniors in particular are struggling at this time, as they live on fixed incomes that are being stretched by rising prices and inflation, which the government is fuelling with its inflationary spending. The government continues to deny the consequences of its inflationary spending, but we are confronted by them daily.
Canadians call me every day asking how the government expects them to keep up with the rising prices that are being caused by the government's out-of-control spending. The government has created an unpredictable economy with record-high inflation. Now, with its plan to triple the carbon tax, Canadians living on fixed incomes are being pushed to their limits.
With the unpredictability of the economy, record high inflation rates and the Liberal plan to raise taxes, the protection of pensions is vital. Canadians need to be secure in the knowledge that their pensions, which they have contributed to for many years, will not be at risk of disappearing overnight.
As inflation continues to rise, those who rely on pensions from the private sector are more vulnerable. They have to worry not only about their monthly payments being stretched thinner and thinner, but also that the company paying their pension may go bankrupt and use the pension fund to pay off its debts.
Over the past two years, we know that many businesses have struggled, many have not survived and many may be on the verge of making the decision to close their doors. Should this happen, many people may find their pensions at risk. Pensioners should not have to worry about the security of their pension. The dream of retiring for Canadians should not be washed away because the pension fund of their company was used to pay off debts and give bonuses to executives.
That is why our party believes that pension plans should be invested by independent trustees for the benefit of employees and should be held at arm's length, not accessible by a company or its creditors. By doing this, the pension fund will be solely focused on serving the workers who are contributing to it and drawing pensions out of it, and we will remove the ability for corporations to interfere with pension funds or cause them to become insolvent.
Another important aspect of this bill, supported by the independence of pension funds, is that in the event of bankruptcy, paying out pensions would become a priority, ensuring that seniors are not left behind. This will ensure that the many years of hard work by Canadian workers will still be rewarded with the pensions they have earned. It will also ensure that even in the case of bankruptcy, the dream of retirement will not be lost. Canadians will still be able to depend on the investments they have made in their companies' pension funds and plan for the future.
I am sure many of my colleagues in this place have heard from Canadians that they are finding it difficult to plan for their future when there is so much uncertainty due to the Liberals' inflation and the rising taxes.
This bill provides an opportunity for members to vote in favour of giving Canadians security in their golden years, allowing them to retire and enjoy the fruits of their labour.
The purpose of this bill is very clear. We want to protect the pensions of hard-working Canadians. The bill seeks to bring more stability to private pension funds and ensure that Canadians do not lose out. It is a step towards giving Canadians more certainty and control over their own lives and hard-earned money, making sure the money they have earned ends up in their own pockets.
I know similar bills have been introduced in the House previously, and I am happy to see that Bill C-228 has had broad support among other parties. Again, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Sarnia—Lambton and hope to see more initiatives in the House to help support Canadians.
939 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here at this, the final reading of this bill, before the vote tomorrow and hopefully the bill's going on to the Senate.
It has been a long journey. Over the last at least 10 years, possibly longer, there have been numerous efforts to bring forward bills to get the pension protection Canadians deserve.
Basically, when I looked at the work that had been done, in every one of them there was something that not everyone could agree on, so I cherry-picked from all the different ideas that people could agree on and said, “Let us at least do something. Let us move in the direction of good.”
That is how Bill C-228 came into being. Previously, there was a bill, Bill C-253 in the last parliamentary session, which made it to the industry committee. It was on the priority of pensions.
This bill would do three things.
It would table a report in the House on the solvency of pension funds, so we can have greater transparency and know which funds are in trouble.
It would create a mechanism for us to transfer funds into an insolvent fund from elsewhere in the business, with no tax implication, so we can fix the problem before it becomes a difficulty for the pensioner.
Then, in the event of a bankruptcy, we would pay out pensions in priority over secured creditors like large banks, preferred creditors, and unsecured creditors. That will put pensioners in a much better position. Pension funds will be solvent, in general, and when there is a bankruptcy, large creditors are way more likely to be able to survive one company's going bankrupt than an individual who has paid into their pension and is counting on it for their retirement.
The bill has had much study. It has heard input from all kinds of stakeholders, and we are here today with what I think is a really good balance of all the rights of the pensioners and those of the suppliers. I think we have a very acceptable balance.
I want to thank a number of people, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, the member for Manicouagan and the member for Joliette, as well as all the finance committee members. There have been numerous people who have helped this bill along, provided their input and provided suggestions to improve it. I want to thank the member for La Prairie, who traded his private member's spot for today in order to move this up quickly and get it over to the Senate.
It just shows that there is broad support for the bill. When we look at the concerns that were raised about the bill, there was one amendment that was made at committee to include severance pay and termination pay in the priority. I supported that. I said I supported it at second reading, but it was ruled out of scope by the Chair and eventually back in the House, where the Liberals wanted the Speaker to rule on it. I think the Speaker was correct in saying that committees do not have the power to put things in that are out of scope, but then we brought a unanimous consent motion.
The member for Elmwood—Transcona brought the motion to have the House decide to put that amendment back in. Unfortunately, at that point, the Liberals did not support that amendment, and the motion did not receive unanimous consent.
That amendment is now out of the bill. That was the controversial part. I think we can agree that the rest is the right thing to do for Canadians.
I am happy to hear the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader say tonight that he has not yet made his decision on how he is going to vote. I would encourage him to vote yes to Bill C-228.
Now is the time, in this parliamentary session, for us, after 10 years of bringing various and sundry bills, to finally do the right thing for Canadians and protect people who have worked their whole lives and paid into a pension fund. It is time to give it the priority it needs to have.
I look forward to the vote tomorrow, and I look forward to having all parties in the House support Bill C-228.
733 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:46:40 p.m.
- Watch
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.
The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:47:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:47:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on Saturday I was invited to attend a rally in Edmonton hosted by the Iranian community, highlighting and showing solidarity with the ongoing protests. My wife was working, so, as I often do, I packed the five kids in the car and we went to this protest together.
I had told my children about the situation in Iran and that morning they were making signs to bring. I was so proud of them, my nine-year-old daughter and my kids all the way down, participating in this act of activism and solidarity with people of Iran, along with me. Then as—
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:48:27 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry. I hate to interrupt the hon. member.
I would ask members who are having conversations at the other end of the chamber to please exit. Again, I just want to remind members to please exit if they are having conversations, as it is interrupting the proceedings.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:48:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was just saying that on Saturday I brought my five kids with me to a rally in solidarity with the people of Iran. We were making signs in the morning. It was a great family experience, engaging my kids in important social justice activism.
However, as I was preparing for this and thinking about what I was going to say at that rally, I was looking at the latest news from Iran and it absolutely broke my heart to read the story of a young Iranian boy, Kian Pirfalak, who also went to a protest with his parents and was killed. He was killed by the so-called Iranian security forces.
His story brought into sharp focus the horrors of what is happening and the grievous injustices of the Iranian regime that have been happening for decades, especially now as people are standing up, fighting back and risking their lives for freedom and justice. We have heard the names of Kian, of Mahsa Amani and of so many others who have been killed by this regime. We honour those who are fighting back, who are seeking justice, who are boldly saying that there is no solution but revolution, and who recognize that this time will be different and that we desperately need a change of government and change of regime in Iran. I am proud to pledge my solidarity and support to the people in that fight.
Often, politically, we see that, when there is something big going on, politicians want to put themselves into that parade. They want to be part of capturing this movement, and we have seen this from the government. We have seen all kinds of efforts by the government, including statements, questions and so forth, to associate itself with this movement. I would welcome a late conversion to the cause of Iranian freedom by the government, but the fact is it still has not taken the key step that the people of Iran and of the Iranian community here in Canada have been asking for, which is listing the Iranian regime's IRGC, its primary implement of terror, as a terrorist organization.
It really is baffling. The Deputy Prime Minister has recognized that the IRGC is a terrorist organization. During a press conference she said that, yes, the IRGC is a terrorist organization, yet the government has refused to list it as a terrorist organization under the Criminal Code. How are we and how is the public to make sense of this? The government says that this is a terrorist organization, but it says, at the same time, that we are not actually going to recognize it as a terrorist organization within the legislative instrument that is designed to recognize and ban terrorist organizations.
Recognizing a terrorist organization is not just a symbolic matter. It is about preventing it from being able to do business here in Canada. It has recently been revealed that the Iranian regime is directly behind death threats toward Canadians. Therefore, we have this regime that is enacting terror against its own people and against people throughout the Middle East, is threatening the lives of people here in Canada and has taken the lives of people from Canada, such as through the downing of Flight PS752.
The government has acknowledged that this is a terrorist organization, yet it failed to list it as a terrorist organization. If the government really wants to show that it is serious about showing solidarity, we have had enough photo ops, enough statements and enough meetings. When will it list the IRGC as a terrorist organization?
603 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:52:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Madam Speaker, the brutal killing of Mahsa Amini by the so-called morality police and the Iranian regime's deadly response to the peaceful protests are once more displaying Iran's shameful disregard for human rights and the regime's support for terror. Our government, along with our international partners, are committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions in accordance with international law.
I would like to reiterate the robust measures Canada has imposed against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or the IRGC, in response to these recent incidents as well as long-term actions against Iran's systemic human rights violations and ongoing behaviour that destabilizes regional security.
Canada imposes rigorous sanctions against the Iranian regime and its leadership under the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, which explicitly targets the IRGC and several suborganizations, including the IRGC air force and the air force missile command. Since the beginning of October, Canada has already listed 42 individuals and 12 entities under the SEMA, in addition to the 202 previously listed Iranian entities and individuals.
Measures under the SEMA prevent Canadians from dealing in any property belonging to listed persons. This effectively freezes all assets in Canada that belong to the sanctioned persons. Contravention of these provisions can carry heavy criminal penalties.
Additionally, Canada lists Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. This listing, together with the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, allows victims to bring civil actions against Iran for losses or damages relating to terrorism. Once Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, becomes law, it will align the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, with SEMA to ensure all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under SEMA will also be inadmissible to Canada.
Furthermore, on Friday, October 7, the Prime Minister announced that Canada will be pursuing a listing of the Iranian regime, including the IRGC leadership, under the most powerful provision of the IRPA. The Iranian regime, including its top leaders, more than 10,000 officers and senior members, will be inadmissible to Canada in perpetuity for their engagement in terrorism and systemic and gross human rights violations.
Moreover, the UN Security Council passed a number of resolutions to impose sanctions on Iran, which are implemented into Canadian law under the United Nations Act. As a result, 84 Iranian individuals and entities are sanctioned under this act. Similar to the Canadian measures under SEMA, engagement in certain activities and transactions involving listed individuals and entities is prohibited in Canada and for any Canadians outside of Canada.
The Criminal Code also sets out a terrorist listing regime to help prevent the use of Canada's financial system to further terrorist activity and to assist in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences. Several of Iran's key proxy actors are captured by this scheme. For example, Canada has maintained the Criminal Code listing for the IRGC Qods Force as a terrorist entity since 2012. This force is recognized as responsible for terrorist operations and providing arms, funding and training to other terrorist groups.
The government continues to be unwavering in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, including by taking all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world.
550 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:56:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is sadly typical of the responses we get from this government to read pre-prepared scripts that do not actually answer the question.
The question for the parliamentary secretary and for the government was this: Why has the government chosen not to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization?
We had a vote in the House, which I believe the parliamentary secretary participated in as did the Prime Minister, where all members of the Liberal caucus voted in favour of our motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. That was four years ago. They did nothing after that. They still have not listed the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
Now, it is all well and good to talk about sanctioning individuals, but when we sanction individuals and not organizations, then new individuals can still use the resources of that organization. They are still able to operate here in Canada, they are still able to recruit here in Canada and members of the organization who are not sanctioned can come to Canada with impunity.
It is a simple question. The government voted to do it, and the Liberals still have not answered why they have not listed the IRGC. Can they answer the simple question?
209 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:57:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member chooses to ignore the measures that we have already taken. Listings under the Criminal Code provide the legal and institutional framework—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
32 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:57:29 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question. He may not like the answer, but there is no debate going back and forth. I am calling the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan out of order. I would ask the hon. member to allow the parliamentary secretary to speak.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:57:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member does not want to hear the answer and ignores what I have been saying.
Listings under the Criminal Code provide the legal and institutional framework to implement measures to freeze and forfeit terrorist property and to help investigate and potentially prosecute someone for certain offences.
Canada is committed to standing up for human rights and to intervening against those who violate them. Canadians can have confidence in the continuing efforts of the government to further constrain the actions of Iran that threaten public safety and violate basic human rights.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 6:58:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this evening I am following up on a question that I raised in the House on October 28. The question I raised at that time was a follow-up on some encouraging news that had been passed on to me by the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington: that the Minister of Public Safety would, for the first time since the Liberals took office seven years ago, be initiating a discussion with the RCMP on the subject of placing automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, in police cruisers.
As I always note when I am speaking on this subject, placing AEDs in all RCMP cruisers would save over 300 lives per year at a one-time cost of only $2 million. That boils down, over a 10-year period, because AEDs last about 10 years, to about $3,000 per life saved.
I also noted on that occasion that 300 lives per year is about 30 lives per month. I suppose I could have added that this is a little less than one life per day, so time is of the essence. Since each human life is as precious as yours, Madam Speaker, or mine, it seems to me that every day that passes is a day too long.
That said, I note that the minister's response to the question I raised on October 28 was very encouraging. He said, “I have engaged my office to be in touch with the RCMP to ensure that it has all of the tools it needs.”
Nearly a month has gone by since that time, which means that another two dozen or so Canadians, whose lives could have been saved had there been an AED in the RCMP cruiser responding to their particular 911 call, have now died. Of course, this cannot be blamed on the minister, whose sincere interest in the subject I do not doubt, but bureaucracies move slowly, and naturally I would like to know what kind of progress has been made on the minister's promise. What kind of engagement, to use the minister's term, has been undertaken?
The hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington, who is of course also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, has very generously offered to give me a private briefing. I am very grateful to her for making such a generous offer, but I think it would be good to get the progress that has been made so far onto the public record. I will therefore ask her to provide the House with this information, and I will listen with considerable interest to her response.
I note as well that my interest in learning the details is sufficiently great that I will also take advantage of the option of placing a question on the Order Paper with regard to this progress so that further details can be made part of the public record. I am very grateful indeed that the parliamentarians who came before us had the wisdom to include that particular wonderful tool of openness in government in our standing orders.
Finally, I note that the parliamentary secretary mentioned, in response to an earlier question that I posed to her on October 17, that the possibility exists of using public-private partnerships to fund the acquisition of AEDs. Specifically, she stated, “If the hon. member had a private company that wanted to donate AEDs to all RCMP vehicles, I would be happy to work with him on that.” I remain interested in this possibility, as the parliamentary secretary knows, and I would ask if she could offer any further details on what the government might be willing to consider.
619 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 7:02:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member again, not only for his interest in placing automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, in RCMP vehicles, but also for the work he has done to ensure that his local police service has AEDs.
Since our last discussion in this place, I have reached out to the RCMP to ask about a private donation of AEDs. I also reached out to the hon. member to suggest that perhaps he and I could have a conversation in person rather than through question period or late shows to try to advance his idea, which I would be more than happy to work with him on.
The information I can provide him tonight is that any donation would need to be accompanied by a detailed proposal outlining the amount of money being donated, which individuals or entities are proposing to donate the funds, and the rationale behind such a donation. Additional steps would be needed to determine what device or series of devices would be required for use nationally in RCMP vehicles.
While the RCMP procured a limited number of AEDs, these devices were purchased for use primarily within facilities or for short-term events. An in-depth needs analysis would be required to evaluate operational parameters such as climate, temperature and durability. A needs analysis is needed to ensure that any device purchased would operate to a known standard regardless of the weather, temperature or location in Canada, as AEDs generally cannot be stored in sub-zero temperatures.
Given the operating environment of RCMP members across Canada, this is an important consideration. Furthermore, the analysis would need to consider the best place to house these devices within RCMP vehicles, being mindful of the other equipment officers require for their daily duties. Beyond the requirements of an in-depth analysis, there are several operational rollout and financial considerations that would need to be assessed, including the additional costs required for the ongoing maintenance and replacement of the devices.
Furthermore, given the unique contract policing role that the RCMP plays in Canada, decisions taken by provincial, territorial and municipal governments play a significant part in how the RCMP purchases, trains, maintains and equips frontline members with new equipment. The procurement of AEDs would be subject to the same consultation process with our contract partners. Finally, any other ethical obligations and due diligence related to such a donation would be carried out.
While AEDs are not mandated, as we know, the RCMP recognizes the benefits of AEDs in specific locations and has developed a limited AED program, which is guided by the RCMP national occupational safety manual. In the context of RCMP facilities, AEDs have been approved for installation and use in select operational areas. The RCMP are committed to the communities they serve. In maintaining this commitment, all officers are required to be trained and recertified every three years.
I will reiterate to the hon. member that this is something we absolutely can work on together. I think it is going to be hard to work together on this in this format in the House of Commons, though.
520 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 7:05:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was a very informative answer from the parliamentary secretary. It was very helpful.
This is not so much in the nature of a question, but rather a comment on the response that the RCMP gave to the parliamentary secretary. Some of the issues that are presented are, I understand, real issues, but some of them are red herrings. I just want to alert her to that.
An example is the storage and weather issue, and the idea that batteries, including those in AEDs, do not work as well in cold weather. These are problems that have been overcome in other police forces. Defibrillators can be put into a heated pack and stored in the back of a police car, where typically it is not as cold as the ambient outdoor temperature. These are problems that exist for the Ottawa police, for example, for the Toronto police, which also have AEDs, and for numerous other police forces in Canada.
I would note that the parliamentary secretary also mentioned the fact that officers are already required to get training, so training costs are in fact zero. The cost I cited to her, which I would be happy to demonstrate, is one that includes battery replacement and necessary servicing.
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 7:07:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate to the hon. member that there is absolutely no doubt that AEDs save lives. I think some of his comments are valid. However, the weather in Ottawa is very different from what it would be in Nunavut. I think those are considerations, but I do not think those considerations are ones we cannot overcome. However, I think we need to work together.
Again, I will give the member my commitment, and perhaps we can find some time to sit down together and come up with a plan on how to present a proposal to the RCMP to move forward on the suggestion, which I have no doubt whatsoever would save lives.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 7:08:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon colleague for spending his evening with me on this very important matter.
As I mentioned last week, Izabela and other parents from my riding of Spadina—Fort York have told me about the proliferation of illegal cannabis shops operating in our community. Many of these illegal stores are using targeted ads and promotion to attract children, and these unscrupulous illegal businesses are also selling copycat edibles that look like candy. However, some of the products have actually poisoned children.
The problem exists because there has been a serious lack of enforcement of the many regulations that legitimate Canadian cannabis businesses must follow. Ignoring these rules has allowed the black market to flourish. Many of these illegal businesses make upwards of $50,000 a day, according to some reports. Most are operating 24-7, selling their unregulated and contaminated products that, and I cannot emphasize it enough, target children. Some have even set up businesses right across the street from a school.
Some parents have tried to organize against these illegal cannabis shops, but they have been warned to stay quiet or face retaliation. People are also afraid to even sign a petition against these operations using their real names, and they only do so anonymously.
Parents are left feeling threatened, helpless and hopeless. The growth in these illegal businesses is unacceptable and very dangerous to our youth. Moreover, the millions that are gained from selling illegal cannabis is often used to buy firearms and fund organized criminal activities, major crimes like money laundering and human trafficking.
While I commend police in Spadina—Fort York, especially 14 Division, for their work in trying to shut down these illegal stores, they cannot do it alone. I hope the federal government will assist police in closing these illegal operations, so I want to ask my hon. colleague what the government is prepared to do to crack down on these illegal pot shops.
327 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
