Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2372 to 2378, 2383, 2385 to 2391, 2396, 2398 to 2400, 2402, 2403 and 2409 to 2415 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

With regard to funding for the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary: (a) what is the government’s annual spending per province since 2019; and (b) what is the government’s annual spending per unit in Quebec since 2019? With regard to government-owned buildings or land: (a) how many buildings or pieces of land are unoccupied or vacant, in total, and broken down by metropolitan area; and (b) what are the details of each building or piece of land in (a), including the (i) physical address, (ii) size of the land, (iii) square footage of vacant buildings, (iv) current use, if any? With regard to land owned or leased by the government: how much land and how many buildings are leased from third-party landlords as a percentage of the total of all government land and buildings? With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many individuals currently have permanent residency status in Canada; (b) what is the breakdown of the individuals in (a) by place of residence (i.e. living in Canada versus overseas); (c) what is the breakdown of the individuals in (a) by stream (i.e. Express Entry, economic, family class, or refugee); (d) how many permanent residency applications are still outstanding or being processed by IRCC; (e) how many permanent residency applications have been rejected; (f) for each rejection in (e), what were the reasons for rejection under statute; and (g) how many permanent resident cards have expired in the last 90 days? With regard to Privy Council Office (PCO) access to information requests A‑2020‑00583, A‑2021‑00266, A‑2021‑00272, A‑2021‑00490, A‑2021‑00495, A‑2022‑00163, A‑2022‑00176 and A‑2022‑00182: (a) on what date did PCO receive each request; (b) to what date did PCO extend the deadline for responding to each request; (c) has PCO responded to each request, and, if not, (i) why not, (ii) on what date does PCO expect to respond to each request; (d) why did PCO not correctly estimate the amount of time required to respond to each request; (e) what is the Prime Minister's position on PCO's delays in processing access to information requests, including whether the delays are acceptable; and (f) if the Prime Minister does not consider the delays to be acceptable, what specific actions has he directed to be done to ensure that similar delays do not occur in the future? With regard to government-owned land or buildings being considered for sale for the purpose of housing: what are the details of each building or piece of land, including the (i) address and location, (ii) size of the land, (iii) square footage, (iv) current state of the building or land, including the type of current occupants, if applicable, (v) current state of sale or disposal, (vi) expected date of sale or disposal, (vii) number of housing units projected to be built at the site? With regard to Department of Employment and Social Development (ESDC) access to information requests A‑2019‑01074 and A‑2020‑01070: (a) on what date did ESDC receive each request; (b) to what date did ESDC extend the deadline for responding to each request; (c) on what date did ESDC receive the Information Commissioner's orders to respond to each request; (d) on what date was ESDC required, by the Information Commissioner's orders, to respond to each request; (e) has ESDC responded to each request, and, if not, (i) why not, (ii) on what date does ESDC expect to respond to each request; (f) what is ESDC's reason for not correctly estimating the amount of time required to respond to each request; (g) why did ESDC not comply with the Information Commissioner's orders; (h) in lieu of compliance with the Information Commissioner's orders, why did ESDC fail to apply to the Federal Court for a review of the orders; (i) what is the position of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, as ESDC's department head, on (i) the acceptability of these delays in processing access to information requests, (ii) ESDC's disregard of the Information Commissioner's orders, including ESDC's decision not to apply for Federal Court review; (j) if the minister considers the actions in (i) to be unacceptable, what specific actions has he directed to be done to ensure that similar failures do not occur in the future; (k) what is the position of the Attorney General of Canada on ESDC's combined failure to respond to the requests and apply for Federal Court review, including whether it undermines the government's commitment to the rule of law in Canada; and (l) what specific actions has the Attorney General directed to be done to ensure that similar failures do not occur in the future? With regard to the Student Direct Stream at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, broken down by year for 2022 and 2023: how many applications (i) were received, (ii) were approved, (iii) were refused or rejected, (iv) are still being processed, in total, and broken down by each participating country, including Antigua and Barbuda, Brazil, People's Republic of China, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Vietnam? With regard to contracts awarded by the government to TELUS since January 1, 2009: what is the total value of these contracts, broken down by (i) year, (ii) department, agency, Crown corporation or government entity? With regard to the RCMP’s response to the Final Report on the Implementation of the Merlo Davidson Settlement Agreement: (a) for each of the 16 recommendation categories, what steps has the RCMP taken to complete each recommendation; (b) for each recommendation in (a), what working groups, committees or other bodies have been created to oversee the completion of the recommendation; (c) what are the details of each group, organization or other body in (b), including the (i) number of staff, (ii) rank or job title of the individual responsible for that group, (iii) number of meetings held; (d) what is the total number of recommendations that the RCMP considers (i) completed, (ii) nearing completion, (iii) in progress, (iv) not started; and (e) by what date does the RCMP believe it will complete all recommendations of this report? With regard to Veterans Affairs Canada and disability benefit decisions, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what is the total number of disability benefit claims received by the department; (b) how many of the claims in (a) were denied by the department; and (c) how many of the claims in (b) were denied due to (i) insufficient evidence being provided by the claimant, (ii) incomplete paperwork being submitted, (iii) incorrect paperwork being submitted, (iv) ineligibility of the claimant? With regard to expenditures made by the government for "Other professional services not elsewhere specified" (Treasury Board code 0499 or similar), broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since January 1, 2020: (a) what were the total expenditures each year; and (b) what are the details of each contract for such services, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of services provided, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced versus competitive bid)? With regard to expenditures made by the government for "Non-professional personal service contracts not elsewhere specified" (Treasury Board code 0819 or similar), broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since January 1, 2020: (a) what were the total expenditures each year; and (b) what are the details of each contract for such services, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of services provided, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced versus competitive bid)? With regard to expenditures by the government to operate and maintain the Corporations Canada Business Registry, the NUANS Registry, the Multi-Jurisdictional Registry Access Service, and the Beneficial Ownership Registry, broken down by registry: (a) what were the total costs associated with each registry, broken down by year from 2017 to present; (b) what are the details of all contracts entered into by the government related to each registry, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value or amount, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole­sourced, competitive bid), (vi) names of registries associated with the contracts; (c) when is each registry projected to reach “end of life”; (d) what are the security implications for these platforms; (e) what gaps, risks, and security exposures related to each registry platform has the government been made aware of; and (f) for each instance in (e), what corrective action was taken? With regard to the development and implementation of the Beneficial Ownership Registry: (a) what are the details of all contracts signed by the government to date related to the registry in any way, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value or amount, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced, competitive bid), (vi) duration; (b) what plans and milestones have been created for establishing modern interoperable systems for the Corporations Canada Business Registry, along with the Beneficial Ownership Registry, to work with the various provincial and territorial corporate registries; and (c) what funding has the government set aside to provide to provinces and territories for them to participate in data collection and sharing as part of the pan-Canadian beneficial ownership regime, in total, and broken down by province or territory? With regard to the government's National Summit on Combatting Auto Theft held on or around February 8, 2024: (a) what are the total expenses incurred by the government to date related to the summit; and (b) what is the breakdown of the expenses in (a) by line item and type of expense? With regard to the national inventory of wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels, broken down by fiscal year since 2011-12: (a) what is the total number of vessels added to the inventory located (i) on the Pacific coast, (ii) on the Arctic coast, (iii) on the Atlantic coast, (iv) in the Great Lakes, (v) in the St. Lawrence Seaway; and (b) what is the total number of vessels removed from the inventory located (i) on the Pacific coast, (ii) on the Arctic coast, (iii) on the Atlantic coast, (iv) in the Great Lakes, (v) in the St. Lawrence Seaway? With regard to government funding for the removal of wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels, broken down by fiscal year and department or agency since 2011-12: what are the details of all projects or initiatives led by First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities or organizations, including the (i) group receiving the funding, (ii) date on which the funding was received, (iii) total amount of funding committed, (iv) location of the vessel or vessels identified for removal, (v) current status of the vessel or vessels? With regard to the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Directive on Term Employment, which took effect on April 1, 2020, broken down by department or agency since March 1, 2023: (a) what is the total number of term employees whom the department or agency converted to indeterminate status; (b) after reviewing the department’s or agency's financial situation over the two- to three-year planning horizon, what is the total number of term employees whose conversion to indeterminate status would result in workforce adjustment; and (c) what is the total number of employees who were informed that their cumulative work periods would not count towards their conversion from term to indeterminate status? With regard to the implementation and processing of claims under Jordan’s Principle, broken down by fiscal year since its implementation: (a) broken down by regional focal point, what is the (i) number of urgent requests received, (ii) total number of requests received, (iii) number of urgent requests approved, (iv) total number of requests approved, (v) number of urgent requests denied, (vi) total number of requests denied, (vii) total amount of funding requested, (viii) total amount of funding approved; (b) broken down by regional focal point, what is the total number of staff available to process requests who are (i) full-time equivalent, (ii) part-time equivalent, (iii) on temporary contracts; (c) reflected as a number and a percentage, how many of the urgent requests in (a) were processed within 12 hours (i) after receiving first contact, (ii) after receiving all necessary information; and (d) reflected as a number and a percentage, how many of the non-urgent requests in (a) were processed within 48 hours (i) after receiving first contact, (ii) after receiving all necessary information? With regard to the implementation and processing of claims under the Inuit Child First Initiative, broken down by fiscal year since its implementation: (a) broken down by regional focal point, what is the (i) number of urgent requests received, (ii) total number of requests received, (iii) number of urgent requests approved, (iv) total number of requests approved, (v) number of urgent requests denied, (vi) total number of requests denied, (vii) total amount of funding requested, (viii) total amount of funding approved; (b) broken down by regional focal point, what is the total number of staff available to process requests who are (i) full-time equivalent, (ii) part-time equivalent, (iii) on temporary contracts; (c) reflected as a number and a percentage, how many of the urgent requests in (a) were processed within 12 hours (i) after receiving first contact, (ii) after receiving all necessary information; and (d) reflected as a number and a percentage, how many of the non-urgent requests in (a) were processed within 48 hours (i) after receiving first contact, (ii) after receiving all necessary information? With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) how many applications to become a member of the CAF were received, broken down by year since 2016; (b) of the applications in (a), how many (i) were accepted, (ii) were denied, (iii) are still being processed; (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by each demographic that is tracked by the CAF (e.g. age, ethnicity, etc.); and (d) for those applications which were denied, what is the breakdown by reason for denial, by year, and by demographic? With regard to government funding in the federal electoral district of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, broken down by fiscal year since 2006-07: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided to rights-holding First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples; and (b) what is the total amount of funding provided to non-rights-holding First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations? With regard to the Canada Dental Benefit, broken down by federal electoral district since the program's inception: (a) what is the total number of applications (i) received, (ii) approved; (b) what is the total dollar value of payments delivered to eligible applicants; and (c) how many children, in total, have been helped by the program? With regard to government funding in the federal electoral district of North Island—Powell River, broken down by fiscal year since 2006-07: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided to rights-holding First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples; and (b) what is the total amount of funding provided to non-rights-holding First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations? With regard to government funding in the federal electoral district of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, broken down by fiscal year since 2006-07: (a) what is the total amount of funding provided to rights-holding First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples; and (b) what is the total amount of funding provided to non-rights-holding First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations? With regard to the importation of goods involving forced labour, prohibited under subsection 202(8) of Chapter 98 of the Customs Tariff: (a) since July 1, 2020, how many seizures have been made at Canadian ports of entry; (b) what are the details of each case, including (i) the dates, (ii) the country and region of origin of the goods, (iii) the description of these goods, including their respective quantities, (iv) their estimated value, (v) the delivery location in Canada, (vi) the intended recipients of the goods, (vii) what was done with the seized goods; and (c) if no goods originating from the Xinjiang region of China have been seized, why have no goods been seized within Canada, when the United States reports seizures of billions of dollars of goods from this region? With regard to the government’s plan to refocus and cut government spending in budget 2023, broken down by department or agency: (a) has the department or agency instituted a hiring freeze; (b) what is the total number of staff who left the department or agency since budget 2023, represented as (i) retirements, (ii) secondments, (iii) temporary leave, (iv) firing for cause, (v) restructuring; and (c) what is the total amount of savings estimated as a result of the hiring freeze?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, the debate that we are having right now is a follow-up to a debate that took place at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in December, where a motion calling for various things was adopted. I would like to read that list of things. The motion called for the government to create “an Anti-Hate Crime Task Force to coordinate the protection of faith communities”, to remove “red tape and speed up access to the Security Infrastructure Program to protect communities at risk” and to evaluate “Canada's threat assessment in light of [the U.K.] travel advisory”, which is something that was in the news more at the time. The motion also called for the government to establish “a Foreign Influence Registry”. From what I understand, that task is being carried out under the guidance of the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. Let us hope that we will finally see, perhaps before the House recesses, the end of the tunnel on this issue, which is, unfortunately, long overdue. This would not just apply to the situation in Iran that we are discussing today, but to many other situations where, for example, foreign agents are conducting legitimate activities on our soil. Finally, and this is what we are primarily debating today, the motion called for the government to designate “the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code and expel the estimated 700 Iranian agents operating in Canada”. Similar motions have been moved in various committees, including the committee on which I sit. The motion was brought back to the floor at the Standing Committee on National Defence and debated many times. It is still being debated today, but perhaps in a context dictated more by current events. I understand that the Conservatives' decision to bring this motion to the floor today has to do with the attack that happened this past weekend, on the night of April 13 to 14, when several ballistic missiles and drones were fired at Israel. In this context, I would like to quote what our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, said. Coming on the heels of the attack, I think his tone was very measured. That is the tone I will use to address the House today. The leader of the Bloc Québécois said: The Bloc Québécois and I join those in the United States, France, the entire international community and among Israel's usual allies in calling on the State of Israel to refrain from launching a counteroffensive in retaliation for Iran's attack on its territory and its facilities. Insofar as there is a troubling risk of escalation that could involve the entire region and, above all, Iran's attack was a failure, suggesting that Israel remains capable of defending its civilian population, and while reiterating that Israel has the right to defend itself and that Iran must be denounced, we believe that it is appropriate for Israel to remain on alert, but not to provoke an escalation that will only hinder the peace process. I think that is the appropriate tone we should be using. I hope that we use the same tone in this debate as well. It breaks my heart that Israel's General Halevi said only an hour or two ago that Israel would retaliate for what happened the night of April 13 to 14. As the saying goes, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. The idea behind the Conservatives' proposal to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group is well meaning. However, as is often the case with other issues, the problem lies in the implementation, in the execution of what is being proposed. That brings to mind what my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith pointed out in her question to the member for Winnipeg North and subsequent remarks. If this is applied across the board, there is a risk that people who should not be on the list may sadly end up on it. Think of the conscripts, for example. In response to that, it was pointed out that most people currently in the IRGC volunteered to be in it. However, we do not know how this will be implemented in practice. We can think of situations in the past where Iranians were denied visas to come here simply because they had served in the military some 20 years earlier. That could happen again. There is a possibility that we might end up targeting people who should not be targeted. Even people who should be protected could probably be caught in the net of an overly broad and insufficiently specific measure. This raises a question that needs to be studied, and that is the capacity to effectively implement this measure. So much the better if it is studied in committee in a few weeks' time. That will allow us to understand the full implications of the request, which is legitimate in substance, but potentially problematic to enforce. It also raises a question about the resources needed to enforce these measures. Enforcement under the Criminal Code would take place on Canadian territory. We would not be targeting members of the IRGC who are still on Iranian soil. We would be targeting people who are here in Canada. The motion talks about approximately 700 people. However, considering that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has lost track of some 1.5 million refugee claimants and does not know their whereabouts or whether they are still here or have left, I wonder whether the government is actually capable of successfully implementing this measure, or whether it will ultimately be just another purely symbolic threat that does not scare anyone, since it is never enforced. The question is worth asking, given the context. Would it not it be better to ensure that sanctions are properly implemented? The question of sanctions against Iran has also been discussed on numerous occasions in committee. Once again, I can think of two problems with sanctions. First, do sanctions not do more harm to the civilian population than to the people they are intended to target, in this case, the IRGC? There is essential work to be done in terms of the approach that is taken. For example, we might consider sanctions that will be aimed more at the media, those that deliberately spread disinformation abroad or that use satellites to rebroadcast certain television channels. As far as economic sanctions are concerned, should we be able to target specific individuals, rather than imposing sanctions that hurt the general population? Second, as I mentioned a little earlier in a question to the member for Winnipeg North, once the decision has been made to introduce sanctions, is there any way to really prove that they are effective? Unfortunately, based on what happened with the sanctions against Russian oligarchs after Ukraine was invaded, for example, I get the impression that the government cannot walk the talk. It wants to impose sanctions, but it is unable to ensure that the right people have been targeted, that their bank accounts have been seized and their money frozen. Again, sanctions are probably a good idea, but the problem is enforcing them. Perhaps we should start by focusing on more effective sanctions in the immediate term, even though this issue has been dragging on for a long time. Back in 2018, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights unanimously adopted a motion to put the IRGC on the list of terrorist entities. Should we not be taking advantage of the fact that, shortly, there will be substantive work done to ensure that such a measure does not cause collateral damage? On the substance, I understand the idea. I agree with adding the IRGC to the list of terrorist entities. However, it would have to be done in a precise enough way to ensure that there are no people suffering as a result, when they certainly should not have to. It could end up targeting people we may have some obligation to protect. Again, the devil is in the details. Is this currently the right forum to hastily discuss that? Unfortunately, I do not think so, especially when concurrence motions are being moved in the House at the last minute. However, I trust the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to do more substantive work after hearing from experts on the issue, so that we can come up with a measured and, above all, effective position. That is the most important thing when dealing with the kind of issue that is before us today.

Madam Speaker, we are well aware that the situation in the Middle East is very dangerous. The higher the military tension, the greater the possibility of a regional and even international conflict. Canada is known as a country of peace. It was Canada that created international peacekeeping forces. What does my colleague think that the Canadian government can do to advance peace and stability in the region?

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about issues of implementation and specifically raised, again, concerns about conscription being an issue in designating a terrorist organization. It is important to underline that it is not only the IRGC, where people being victims of conscription into a terrorist organization is an issue. This could well be an issue with many organizations that are currently, and have long been, on the list of designated terrorist organizations. It is with reference not only to situations with the IRGC but also to other potential situations that we specifically proposed, in Bill C-350, an amendment that would ensure the provisions of IRPA, as it relates to terrorist organizations, do not apply to individuals who are victims of forced conscription into designated organizations. We are proposing legislation that not only would designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization, but also would solve this problem for people who were conscripted into the IRGC and for others who may have been conscripted into other organizations. It is important for members of the House to know that this problem has been solved by this proposal. Therefore, we have an opportunity to support Bill C-350 and to move this issue forward, listing the IRGC and addressing the conscription issue at the same time.

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan raises a perfectly legitimate question, but why not debate it in the appropriate forum instead of raising it in the House at the last minute? We are debating it today without knowing all the ins and outs of it and without having had the opportunity to hear testimony from experts, for example, before speaking on the issue. It is the method, not the substance, that I find somewhat disappointing about today's debate. The substance is important. No one in the Bloc Québécois would argue the opposite. We cannot really vote against this type of motion, but perhaps we do not have all the tools we need to vote for the motion and then hammer home the point that we need to implement all the measures we just voted for. The problem lies in how to proceed. We understand that there is work to be done in committee. We can debate the bill once the experts have pointed out its flaws, with a view to improving it. Today, however, we are proceeding at the last minute with a motion for concurrence in a report, and that is not the right way to approach such a complex problem.

Madam Speaker, one thing my colleague spoke about was the use of concurrence debates to do this important work, and it is very important work that we undertake. In just a few weeks, in fact, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development will be looking at Iran, will be studying this and will be bringing forward the minister to talk about how we can do this in a way that protects those who are conscripted. That is where we should be having this debate. That is a meaningful way that we can ensure Canada is doing what needs to be done to make sure that Iran, the IRGC, who are very clearly terrorists, has its leadership punished, yet those who might be innocent are not. I wonder if she could comment on that.

Madam Speaker, I feel like taking my colleague's intervention, putting it in the present tense, removing the question mark and making it the answer. Every aspect of the answer was in the question as well as in my speech. Indeed, this is not the right forum. This is an important issue and it deserves to be addressed properly in committee. With a bit of luck, we will stop having 72 motions moved by the Conservatives in committee and we will be able to do the work in this place like we should. Instead of filibustering in the House, they should allow the committee to study this issue properly so that we can come up with real solutions.

Madam Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who I would also like to thank for her leadership, consistency and advocacy in advancing this debate, which she just mentioned will happen at committee regarding her very own motion. I am so glad the other parties have finally realized how important that work is. There has been some discussion in the House today, and I really want to bring this close to home. I am standing here today not only on behalf of the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, but also on behalf of the residents of Port Coquitlam. We lost a beautiful family on flight PS752: Ardalan, Niloo and their son Kamyar from Port Coquitlam. This beautiful young family who was lost in the downing of PS752 hit hard in our community that we call the Tri-Cities, and every new year, the Iranian and Persian families in my community, which has over 6,000 Iranians living in it, relive the PS752 incident. I know that North Vancouver is looking at having a flight PS752 memorial. When I was at the memorial coming together this year, at the beginning of the year, it was discussed again by the B.C. government that it would be contributing to a memorial in North Vancouver. It is such a sad situation that Ardalan, Niloo and Kamyar were a family lost to a terrorist regime. However, it does not just stop with the downing of that flight or with the loss of this family; this is the lived experience of Iranians in the community of Port Moody—Coquitlam, in Anmore and Belcarra and in Port Coquitlam every single day when they go out and see people, who they know are associated with the regime, in the community. The loss of Mahsa Amini was very difficult for the Persian community in B.C., whose members had to relive the experiences from which they fled to Canada. They have come to Canada for safety, yet when they go out shopping, when their kids go to school or when they are out in the community, they are being surveilled by a regime that has people here in Canada. People have come to my office over and again. A young man was in my office with his two-year-old son recently, crying because he knows there are people from the regime here in Canada doing surveillance, and there is nowhere he can go to share that information. As I see there are some people here from the Liberal Party, and one is standing up right now, who would have some influence, I would ask this: Let us have a safe space where Persian Canadians and where people from Iran can come and tell their stories safely, a place where they can come and say that they have seen someone they feel is dangerous and can say that there is surveillance going on because it is a safe space, because coming to my office and telling me is not a safe space for them, or they do not feel that it is. Therefore, I would ask for that. Before I get into a bit more around the woman, life, freedom event and the woman, life, freedom movement, Zan, zendegi, azadi, I would say that there are so many courageous, brave women and men in Port Moody—Coquitlam, in Anmore and Belcarra and in Port Coquitlam who, every single weekend, come out to stand up against violence against women, to stand up for the human rights of women, to honour Mahsa Amini and all those beautiful people who have been lost. They come out every weekend in Vancouver to do this work. I wanted to share how the Persian culture has flourished so deeply in my community. Recently, for Nowruz, there were thousands of people who came to Town Centre Park to celebrate the festival of fire, to jump the fire and to start the new year with fresh, new energy. I think this is an opportunity, as the member for Edmonton Strathcona leads the debate at the foreign affairs committee, for labelling the IRGC as a terrorist entity. I thank her so much for doing that work. This is the new energy we need in this country. We need to protect Persian Canadians, Iranian Canadians and Iranians who come to this country for safety, and we are benefiting from such rich cultures. That is kind of what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to just share what a beautiful culture comes together every year around Nowruz at the end of the year and at Yalda. Beautiful Persian culture gets shared with our community. However, hanging over this is the regime that continues to show its head in B.C. and around the Lower Mainland, where I am. I hear about money laundering. I hear about the amount of real estate people who are associated with the regime have in my communities of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra. There is intimidation and fear. I was at a “women, life, freedom” event in Winnipeg not too long ago, and some of the people there were talking to me about the fact that they were wearing a mask because they need to hide their identity. They are not safe in Canada, and the government knows this. I cannot go to an event in my community and not hear Persian community members telling me they have seen someone, at a bakery, out an event or purchasing a house locally in the community, who is associated with the regime. The government knows this, and not only is it not doing anything to stop it, but it is also making it very difficult for Iranians who live here who have had a baby. If they want their mother or grandmother to come see the baby, they cannot get a visa. In fact, in my office I feel like there is some prejudice happening from the government, from IRCC, disallowing people from getting a visa for a mother, a grandmother or a grandfather to come to see a family member, so I would ask the government to look at that too. There are many families here that would like to have their family members come to visit them. I want to talk a bit about the LGBTQ+ community, because there are Iranian Canadians who come to my office who have family members, and sometimes it is a child, still in Iran who are members of the LGBTQ+ community. They are petrified and want to get their children out of Iran, yet they cannot even get an audience with IRCC on this. This is important work, and I would encourage the government to really understand that there are many Persian Canadians and Iranian Canadians who are still suffering at the hands of the regime here in Canada and who are being discriminated against by IRCC. I think my main point is that it seems like we are talking about a regime that is far away. It is not far away if someone is not able to live their life freely in Canada, and we know that is happening. That is why I want to end my statement today by really talking about the work of the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who has been pushing to have a really thorough, important, deep debate on this discussion with witnesses who can come forward with testimony. That is why I say that we are having some discussion today but we need to have deeper discussion, which is being led by the NDP member from Edmonton Strathcona. I thank her so much for her work, and I want her to know from the bottom of my heart and from the bottoms of the hearts of the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore, Belcarra and Port Coquitlam, that we need this debate to happen. We need to have protection for our citizens here in Canada.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's drawing our attention to the humanity of the issue. I have a very good friend, Kourash, whose partner died on the flight, and it is important, when we take a look at the issue and the depth of it, that a standing committee have an opportunity in the calling of witnesses and have a great deal more time. I like to think that at times, in a very apolitical fashion, a committee can be very effective at coming up with recommendations. When I look at how the matter was raised today, that is one of the biggest problems I have, because I do not want to see it turned into a political game. That is one of the reasons I suggested that, at the very least, what should have been considered was an emergency debate, and if not an emergency debate, then to leave it with the standing committee, where proper research and justice could be done for all those Canadians who have very real anxiety.

Madam Speaker, I know we are going to talk more about this, but what is important for the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore, Belcarra and Port Coquitlam, for whom I am going to speak today because I have the opportunity, is that the government consider and put on the terrorist list the IRGC, and for them to have a safe space where they can report what they are seeing. That is important to the residents of my community. The third thing, which I will close on, is that it is important for my community that the government know that there are real estate and assets being bought up by people associated with the regime in my area, the Lower Mainland of B.C., and it needs to stop.

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member on at least recognizing the fact that there are IRGC agents in Vancouver. I do spend quite a bit of time in the Persian community, but also with Kurds and Baloch, who are also all impacted. Many of them originate from Iran and are chased here by IRGC agents who continue to try to persecute them, whether it is with WhatsApp messages or telegram messages, telling them that their families will be found in Iran if they speak up or join one of the Jin, Jîyan or Azadi, to use the Sorani Kurdish dialect, if they join in Mahabad or Sanandaj or Saqqez. It is a regime that is more than happy to murder people both in Iran and all over the Middle East, then chase people to Europe and Canada and never leave them alone. I want to bring up Kian Pirfalak because there was a tree-planting ceremony in Calgary in the name of this nine-year-old who was murdered by the IRGC. I would like to hear from the member why she thinks it has been six years since Parliament passed a motion calling for the IRGC to be listed as a terrorist organization in our Criminal Code, and the government continues to refuse to do that.

Madam Speaker, as a woman standing in Parliament, I can say that if there were more women in Parliament, if there were women in governments across the world, we would not be dealing with this. It was the Liberals who were lax, which I agree they are, and the Conservatives before them were also lax. Things that have to do with women and the human rights of women do not get the attention they deserve. I raise my hands to all the brave and wonderful women who stood up for “women, life, freedom” and actually brought this to the table.

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave an incredible speech, and she has raised the issues of her constituents. New Democrats have tried for a very long time to expand the number of countries that we are looking at with regard to foreign interference, because we understand that it is an issue not just with China. It is an issue with many countries, like Russia and Iran, that have influence and political interference in our communities, in our neighbourhoods and our country from coast to coast to coast. We know there have been parties in the House that have not wanted us to look at that, have not wanted to expand that, but we are looking at political interference, and that is what we heard so clearly in the member's speech. Can you explain why some parties did not want to include countries like Iran in looking at foreign interference?

I cannot explain anything, but the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam surely will.

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona said, this has been important to the NDP. It has been important to our communities for a very long time. I can only say that it is very unfortunate that the Liberal government and the Conservative government before it never put as high a priority on looking at foreign interference. Fortunately the NDP did. Fortunately New Democrats are the ones who have led the discussion that is happening now on foreign interference, and I am so looking forward to the study that is coming up from the foreign affairs committee, led by the member for Edmonton Strathcona.