44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 15, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/15/24 3:40:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this important motion because of what we witnessed this weekend.
There was the delay of the government to say anything at all on following our allies and at least condemning this in a reasonable amount of time. We did not see that.
I ask members to imagine being part of a government that six years ago voted in favour of listing the IRGC, to imagine seeing what happened this weekend with 300 projectiles being fired directly on a democratic ally, to imagine being part of a government when the Saudis were better allies to our friend and democratic partner than the Government of Canada has been, and to imagine getting up in the House to say that the motion today is not an important motion to debate after witnessing 300 projectiles directly fired on a friend and democratic ally. Members do not have to imagine it. It just happened.
There has been six years of foot-dragging. The question has been asked hundreds of times in the House as to what day and at what time the government is going to list and ban the IRGC terrorists, who are operating openly in our country. Today, in the House, the answer was exactly the same. The government is trying, consulting and working on it. This has been the answer for six years, yet the Prime Minister himself got up and voted to ban the IRGC.
Today the mullahs in Iran and their proxies are fighting wars that kill Canadians. They killed hostages with Canadian citizenship. They killed 55 Canadians in the downing of flight PS752, 30 of whom were permanent residents. Since 2015, the government has done nothing but appease the mullahs in Iran. The Prime Minister himself met with the foreign minister, bowing his head in respect, in 2016, not even a year after the flight went down. It was absolutely disgusting to watch.
There are communities all over the country that know that operatives of the regime openly spend money. They have blood money to buy homes and assets in this country. Their kids go to school at universities here. The flood gates are open. We know that they intimidate Canadians in every single neighbourhood. We know that the chief of police of Tehran worked out in at GoodLife Fitness in midtown Toronto. We know that senior members of the regime are eating steak dinners in fancy restaurants in Toronto openly, with impunity. This is after eight years of the government.
The worst is what we saw in the streets of Toronto. At the very moment the projectile missiles fired on a democratic friend and ally, there was celebration and jubilation in the streets of our biggest cities. There was a failure to denounce that by a party that we know is capable of denouncing all kinds of protests in this country. If its members were at all concerned with the desecration of a statue in front of Parliament and said nothing about what has happening in our streets, the mobs of protesters with covered faces brandishing swastikas, I cannot help them.
However, what we can do today, as a country, is to ban the open operations, the ability to raise money and organize, of the IRGC terrorists who live among us, and there are at least 700 who we know about in this country, yet we get the same answers over and again. The government has been asked no less than 100 times in the House, and the answer is always the same. They say that they take terrorism seriously, that they are working on it and that they are looking into it. It has been six years.
If this weekend and the events from this weekend have not changed that answer, then we have a really big problem with the government. We have a really big problem with how it treats terrorism, how it treats national security in this country and how it treats the very communities who elect its members to come here. We also have a problem with members of Parliament from the other side, particularly the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill, who meets with agents of the IRGC in his office. It is open, and it is known. I will say it inside of the House and outside of the House. His community knows that, and it is shameful. The fact that the answer is the same today, that they are working on it or they are looking at different ways to do it, is absolutely shameful.
The 700 IRGC agents we know about who we have living in this country, and there are potentially more, intimidate Canadians every single day. They intimidate Canadians in neighbourhoods right across the GTA and in North Vancouver. We hear them. Our own conversations with them happen sometimes with a blurred out background because they are so scared about making the call to somebody in government or their MP for help that they blur out the background. They sit in their car away from their home because they are terrified of the intimidation that they face here.
There are thousands of Iranian Canadians, freedom-loving Iranian Canadians, who fled that regime to find safety and a better life here in Canada. Their expectation from their government is that they will be kept safe and free of intimidation, be able to go to school and to work, and be able to talk to their MP from their home without being terrified of being watched by the regime. That is what we are dealing with in Canada. That is what the community is dealing with in Canada. Those people have said so, and they continue to call on the government, after six years of it doing nothing to at least list these operatives as the terrorists they are.
Today in Canada, they can raise money, have meetings and organize. This is the Islamic regime in Iran that has been fighting proxy wars against our ally until the direct attack on the weekend. This is the regime in Iran that has funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. This is the most destabilizing force in all of the Middle East and one of the most destabilizing forces in the entire world. The very fact that the government answers the question in the same way today as it has for the last six years, and for two years before that, is a darn shame because there are people in this country who want to see the government take national security and terrorism seriously. It is about time that it do that. It is about time that it does that for every single freedom-loving Canadian who sees what is going on in their streets, where the progressive left has been co-opted by the Iranian regime with things like Al-Quds Day, which is funded entirely by the mullahs in Iran to destabilize our own streets here.
It is unbelieve that the Liberals' answer after six years is exactly the same. They say, “We are working on it. We are going to do it. We have a tough sanctions regime on Iran.” They do not even know how many operatives are here. They do not know how many people they are going to put on their list because they do not have a list. If they did have a list, they would produce that list. It is a government that does not take terrorism seriously. It is a government that does not take national security seriously. Soon there will be a government that does, but until then, the Liberals can do one thing. They can ban the IRGC from organizing, from fundraising and from living freely here and intimidating our own citizens. That is what this motion calls on, and I hope the Liberals vote in favour of it.
1316 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:50:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Iranian regime has brought untold harm onto its own citizens and has caused chaos throughout the region and the world. There is no argument from me on that.
The United States has listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity, but doing so has actually had a profound effect on a number of Canadians. There are about 30,000 Canadians in Canada who were conscripted to be part of the IRGC. Through no fault of their own, they are not able to travel to the U.S. for vacations or for work opportunities. It includes their spouses and their children as well. This is already having a profound impact. I actually had an email today from a constituent who was asking about this.
How would my hon. colleague go about ensuring that, by listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity, it would not bring these types of issues onto our citizens? How might that be approached?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is dealt with in Bill C-350 and he could have passed it right now if the Liberals did not oppose it on the floor of the House of Commons.
The member is giving a bureaucratic answer for a regime that subjugates women, that kills members of the LGBTQ community, that kidnaps and tortures its own people, and that has brought that over into our country to intimidate people in his own riding, in my riding and in many of the ridings people here represent.
That bureaucratic answer is what he is going to have to tell his members who are constantly being intimidated by a regime that is the most destabilizing regime in the entire world.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:52:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech this afternoon on this very important concurrence motion.
I would like her to comment on what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said just before question period when she stood in front of the microphone. She spoke to an Israeli counterpart and said, after the weekend attacks, they should just take the win and de-escalate the situation. Obviously, we would like to see a de-escalation of the situation in the Middle East, but she implied that Israel should somehow take the win because there were no deaths. Fortunately, Saudi Arabia and Jordan intervened and shot down many of the airborne missiles and weapons sent to Israel.
Can she comment on the Minister of Foreign Affairs's comments?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:53:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I cannot keep up with the multiple positions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs or her inability to ever talk about this issue without being naive.
I could not do that, but I do know one thing: The Prime Minister and the government have outsourced their foreign policy to the progressive left. It has resulted in Canada, following a motion that was just passed in the House, supporting the stopping of arms sales to Israel, while they are, out of the other side of their mouths, telling the Israelis that Canada stands with them. They cannot walk and chew gum at the same time; at least the foreign minister cannot.
It is unfortunate to see that a long-standing consensus of support for a democratic friend and ally has been left to languish on the floor of the House of Commons by the Liberals. There will be a time when we return to that long-standing consensus in this country, and that time cannot come soon enough.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:54:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, can the member tell us when she believes they should have received that designation? She often makes reference to six years ago. Is that when the Conservatives would have put it in? When would they have put in the designation?
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:54:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a party that unanimously voted for it in June 2018. That was six years ago. They could have done it any single day in those six years. The fact that the answer is the same today after what happened this weekend is absolutely shameful, and that member should be ashamed of himself for even asking that question.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:55:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will tell members what the member opposite, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, should feel. She should feel ashamed of the way the Conservative Party is manipulating an issue that is as serious as it is, all for the sake of playing a political game. Let there be no doubt that this is all this is for the Conservative Party of Canada.
I asked a legitimate question of the Conservative deputy leader. What kind of response did she give? She talked about shame. The Conservative Party has no concept or idea of what diplomacy or international foreign affairs is actually about. When we asked when the Conservatives would have brought it in, what did she say? That they brought in a motion and it was passed a few years ago. She completely avoided the question after condemning our government for the actions we have taken in regard to this particular issue.
Further to that, if someone listens to that member or the critic, they will see they are being critical of its being six years ago. When did Donald Trump make that declaration? The Conservatives say they do not wait for Donald Trump, yet they are asking why we were not there for the United States. When did Donald Trump do it? It was less than six years ago. There is a hint. Maybe they can do a bit of research on it. Then they talk about the European Union—
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:56:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point order. The member is talking about making the IRGC a terrorist organization, so I would call relevance on the member's comments and ask if you could—
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:56:58 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member knows there is a lot of latitude on relevance. The hon. member has 20 minutes for his speech, and there is lots of time to get there.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:57:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe the member would stand and ask a question on relevance when every aspect of everything I have said is absolutely relevant. It is a reflection on the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour and how its members like to ensure there is dysfunction in the chamber. They play this political game of bringing up motions for concurrence of this nature in order to prevent debate.
At the same time, they will say this is such an important issue and that is the reason they want to debate it today. However, they did not have the political courage to bring it forward in the form of an emergency debate. They say how important it is and that they are not playing a game with this issue, but rather that it is a serious issue. Then they cite the United States and ask why it is taking Canada so long. When I start to explain it, they jump up like jelly beans and say what I am saying is not relevant. How stupid of a comment from the opposition—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:58:13 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask the hon. member to be very prudent with his choice of words, please. I would be very grateful if the member could take that word back.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member opposite asked a very good question about why I am so exercised on this particular issue. Earlier today, the member posed that question to me while introducing her remarks on Bill C-50. Some members of the House, including the member who posed that question to me just now, came to the House believing that this was what we were going to be talking about today. All one needs to do is listen to her speech a couple of hours back.
Members of the House knew full well what we were going to be debating today. That is why I talked about this being a charade and about the games being played by Conservative Party members. What they have really done is prevent, once again, debate on government legislation, the very same piece of legislation that the member opposite, who is heckling me, made an amendment to. Why? It is because they want to filibuster the legislation. That is the real motivation behind the motion today.
Members have stood up to say it is such an important issue. If it is so important, why did they not want to introduce an emergency debate on the issue?
An hon. member: Because it's not an emergency; it's just a distraction.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, as one of my colleagues said, it is really and truly not an emergency from the Conservatives' perspective, but rather it is a distraction. It is to take us away from the debate on the amendment that the Conservatives put forward on government legislation. Remember that this is the same bill, Bill C-50, that we voted on for hours and hours last week. It is the same bill for which the critic who is responsible for it utilized artificial intelligence to generate over 20,000 amendments. Let the games continue. That is what we are witnessing from across the way.
Why do I get so exercised about it? It is because I, unlike Conservatives, who choose to make games of serious issues of this nature, believe that it is an important issue. I only wish Conservative Party members would be more genuine in their comments on the issue. What do I mean by that? Why did they not bring in an emergency debate if they really felt that it was such an emergency? How many questions did they ask on the issue? By my count, it was one or two.
Allow me to provide this quote, if I may, of the minister's response to a Conservative member in question period. Here is what the minister indicated earlier today: “We have said many times in the House that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has repeated that.”
That is a pretty strong statement. I believe that if we were to canvass the House, the entire House would agree with that particular statement. He continued, “We have taken a series of severe measures to restrict members of the regime, including the revolutionary guard corps, from coming to Canada. With respect to listing a terrorist entity, it is national security agencies”, and I am going to pause there. Imagine a national government that wants to allow the professionals, the people who have their feet on the ground, to do what it is they are charged to do and to bring back recommendations and thoughts on the process to the government.
When they say six years, I say balderdash. They know nothing about what they are actually talking about. They want to out-trump Trump, quite frankly. Shame on them for the poor attitude that they display, day in and day out, on very important issues.
The minister responded that it is the national security agencies that do these reviews, not the Conservative Party of Canada; amen to that. From time to time, they provide advice to the government. Obviously all options are on the table. I have asked the national security community to provide the government with that advice quickly.
The Conservative Party, as I have said, is all agitated. I would suggest that a lot of that comes out of drama school. At the end of the day, the Conservatives are agitated and ask why the government has not taken action. When did the European Union come to the table on the issue? I believe it was just last year.
An hon. member: Who cares? Just focus on Canada.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member says “Who cares?” However, she likes to compare Canada's response to responses of other countries.
The Conservative Party tries to fit everything through a lens that has only one purpose. That is to play the role of a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons, to prevent important legislation from passing that would make a difference for Canadians.
Today in question period, the Conservatives stood up and asked a couple of questions about our farmers. They talked about giving our farmers a break. I should tell members that, when they play the types of games they are playing today, they should take a look at what is happening with the fall economic statement inside the committee.
Today the Conservatives are talking about a terrorist organization; they want more recognition from the government to that effect. The government is saying that it is going to look to its professionals, the individual security agencies that Canada has and those individuals who bring a great deal of experience to the table.
What else does the Conservative Party do, in terms of disrupting the House? It does not want to pass the fall economic statement, so it cries about the farmers and yet filibusters. If I were a gambling man, which I am not, I would suggest that even on the fall economic statement, the Conservatives probably brought in concurrence reports. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong on that. The point is that this particular bill is still in committee, being filibustered. That bill would actually double the top-up for the rebate for rural communities. Duh, that helps the farmers.
Again, at the end of the day, these are the types of things that the Conservatives exercise, day in and day out, in order to prevent legislative and budgetary measures from being passed through the House of Commons. Here they have come to a report, which I have made reference to. I could talk about some very specific points, in terms of recommendations, and I will go to that. However, before I do, I want to remind members across the way that, at the end of the day, there are many different opportunities for the Conservatives, if they genuinely believe this is something they really and truly want to talk about. They chose not to do that.
I already referred to the emergency debate. For those who might be following this debate, an emergency debate would have taken place had the Conservatives taken the opportunity to stand in their place and articulate why the House of Commons should be designating a block of time in order to have an emergency debate on the issue. They could have done that instead of moving this particular motion for concurrence.
The problem is that, even if the Speaker had agreed to the emergency debate, it would have been deferred by a few hours. The Conservatives had absolutely no intention of bringing in an emergency debate. It is not as though the report and the recommendations are what they really want to talk about. However, that is one thing they could have done.
We know the official opposition has other opportunities to raise matters through opposition days. It has had 20-plus opposition days. It is important to look at everything its members have talked about. Today we are talking about the IRGC, a report and the timing of it. Why would they not bring this up in an opposition day? In an opposition day, they can be very specific, list every concern they have and have an entire day of debate on the issue. At the end of that debate, an actual vote takes place. If the Conservative Party members were genuinely concerned about the IRGC, why would they not have done it that way?
Instead, Conservatives have had the last 18 days or 20 days in row to talk about misleading information with respect to the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax and how they are going to fool Canadians with their bumper sticker slogans. This is what they have been debating, and this is the sad reality.
We have a very serious issue here that affects so many people; it affects them directly here in Canada, as well as abroad, both directly and indirectly. If Conservatives took the issue as seriously as they say they do, I would suggest that, at the very least, they could have had further dialogue or another opposition day designated to talk about it and define the points they really wanted to make.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran is a great concern for all of us. I appreciate when there are opportunities, in the form of questions during question period, for members of whatever political party to raise important issues. I also would suggest that they take a look at the responses they are given to those questions. It needs to be put in the context of what is happening around the world and what other allied countries might be doing.
I am very much aware of what took place over the weekend. I thought it was great we actually had the leaders of the G7 come out with a joint statement on the issue. If I had the time, I would read the entire statement that they released. These were things they shared in common.
Unlike the imagery the Conservative Party tries to portray, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been very effective at working with our allied nations, reflecting on Canadian values and taking them onto the international scene. There is absolutely no doubt, from my perspective, that this is the best way to deal with the issue at hand.
There is a great deal of media attention about what has taken place since October 7, what took place over the weekend and everything in between. I would like to think a vast majority of members, if not all, are following what is taking place in the Middle East very closely, because it has an impact on the communities we all represent.
For me, it is about Canadian values. It is about working with allied, like-minded countries and putting Canada in a position we can all, ultimately, feel comfortable with going forward. I am confident in the position we have actually taken.
In the comments from across the way, there was reference to flight 752, the impact that had on Canadians and the people who died. I have talked to individuals one-on-one and listened to the problems and issues that have been surrounding it. I am very much a big fan of Ralph Goodale, and I appreciate a lot of the fine work he has done, in terms of trying to help Canada get over that particular issue in a way in which we ensure that there is a higher sense of justice.
As do all members of the House, I see the IRGC and what is taking place as something that is completely unacceptable. At the end of the day, I believe that the Conservatives have used this issue as a part of the game of filibustering and preventing government legislation and budgetary issues from being debated. That is wrong. There is the problem.
The debate itself would have been a whole lot better, and the gamesmanship would have been put to the side, if this had taken the form of an opposition motion. Now the Conservatives are using what has taken place over the weekend for that sense of emergency. Having said that, they had the opportunity to do that, too. They intentionally chose not to.
That is the party that is trying to turn this into a game and then ramp up the emotions that Canadians are feeling. There is a lot of anxiety in our communities, and the Conservatives are contributing to it. They are a part of the problem, and that is what I see taking place today.
2090 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 4:16:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the problem is the Liberal government, which has dragged its feet for six long years. It has been four years since the IRGC shot down PS752, murdering 55 Canadians and 35 permanent residents in what the Ontario Superior Court has determined to be a terrorist attack. The families of PS752 victims have been pleading with the Liberals; for four years, their pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
The member's government, under the leadership of his Minister of Foreign Affairs, has literally trashed decades of Canadian foreign policy to buy out the anti-Israel NDP by supporting a motion that calls for an arms embargo on Israel; in other words, it strips Israel of its right to defend itself. Does the member support Israel's right to defend itself from attacks by Hamas and the IRGC? How does he square that with what his government has done?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 4:17:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is posing two questions. The first is in regard to the timing issue, saying that we should have done this six years ago. That is what the Conservative Party is implying in the question, as the member nods his head, acknowledging that what I am saying is true. To that, I say that I am in no hurry to out-Trump Donald Trump, when he made the announcement in 2019, which is under six years ago. Is that the type of attitude we are going to see coming from the Conservative Party? The member continues to nod his head, saying “yes”.
I disagree. I do not think we should be dictated to by Donald Trump or individuals even further to the right than the MAGA Conservatives we see today.
In regard to the second question, he asks about Israel. I said in my comments that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has been working diligently with our allied countries, has developed and put together a consensus, as we continue to move forward, based on Canadian values, and I fully—
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 4:18:25 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give other members the opportunity to ask questions.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 4:18:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the problems with the motion to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity is the implementation of this measure. We know that the government generally has a hard time implementing its own proposals. Look at the sanctions. Sanctions against Iran were announced as early as 2022-23. As we have seen with sanctions relating to Ukraine, the government is completely incapable of following through with what is happening.
When the government announces something, would it not be a good first step for it to at least implement it? Maybe we would not always want to bring more things forward if the government followed through every time. Would it not be the first thing for the government to do, on its own, when it decides to impose sanctions against a regime, for example, to ensure that those sanctions are truly implemented?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 4:19:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do believe that there are some sanctions that are already in place. I want to re-emphasize that the minister responsible indicated very clearly to the House just an hour or so ago that we have security agencies that are charged with the responsibility of doing the work that is necessary in order to provide the type of quality advice that Canadians expect of our security agencies. It would be pre-emptive to do something before that is actually provided. I appreciate the question and look forward, as no doubt the member opposite does, to what ultimately is decided on this.
I would go back to the European Union. From what I understand, it was not until maybe the summer of last year that the E.U. ultimately recognized the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 4:20:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have an incredible community of Iranian Canadians in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, so I want to first acknowledge all of those in my community. I think of Shirin, particularly, who is the owner of The Bees Knees in Nanaimo, who contributes in so many ways.
My question for the member is specifically around the point of designating the IRGC as a terrorist entity now. Many Iranian Canadians are speaking to me about the importance of holding to account those who are participating in human rights violations and committing terrorism, and of moving this forward.
Can the member also share his thoughts around the importance of, while holding terrorism to account, also considering those who are conscripted into the IRGC and how that plays into the decisions being made, moving forward, so that those who are forced into the IRGC are not being held to the same degree of responsibility as those who are voluntarily participating in terrorism?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 4:21:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and it is important. Again, the minister himself indicated earlier today, during question period, that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. We need to be very clear on that point. The government has security agencies that do outstanding work, and we look forward to whatever ultimately comes of that work.
My concern, more to the member's question, is the anxiety that is in our communities. There is a considerable amount of anxiety there from a number of different communities, let alone among most Canadians who have been following the news in any significant way. I do not appreciate that when we have that kind of anxiety in our communities, we get an opposition party choosing to make a game of it. It actually adds to the anxiety, and that does a disservice to Canadians.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
