James Bezan

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“I want the House to pass this bill. It helps us sanction people who abuse human rights around the world. It will better protect human rights defenders and people imprisoned for their beliefs, like Falun Gong practitioners and Uyghurs in China.”

“Madam Speaker, right now the process is that the government, through its assessment, determines which individuals are responsible for allowing a state, government, organization or individuals who are actually out there acting inappropriately and abusing the rights of individuals. I will go back to the Falun Gong practitioners example. There are actually doctors out there and others who are involved in this grotesque trade of illicitly harvested human organs: hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys. It is a disgusting practice. Never mind what the PRC regime is doing to the Uyghurs, having them reprogrammed and sterilizing them and using them as forced labour, essentially slave labour. By having this bill, we would more clearly define what those prisoners of conscience and human rights defenders are, and ensure that we are standing up and fighting for each and every one of them around the world.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Ziad Aboultaif

“This bill helps Canada work with our allies to punish corrupt foreign leaders and human rights abusers. If democratic countries do not work together on sanctions, we cannot stop abuses like the illegal trade in human organs taken from groups like the Falun Gong.”

“Madam Speaker, first and foremost, this bill is about coordination of how we sanction corrupt foreign officials and how we go after human rights abusers within our own regulatory framework and, more importantly, how we ensure that we are working in better coordination with our allies. If the free world countries, democratic states in the EU, our NATO allies and our democratic allies in the Asia-Pacific, are not working in lockstep, which this bill encourages, then those corrupt foreign officials, those oligarchs, those world leaders who are enriching themselves at the cost of their own citizens, persist. I take, for example, how the Falun Gong community has been used. People have been victimized and killed and their organs illegally harvested and sold all around the world. If we are not working in lockstep to sanction the individuals who are enriching themselves on this black market, this grotesque trade in human organs, we will never be able to stop them. This is about working together so that we can stand up for the human rights of those individuals and others around the world.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Mona Fortier

“I support this bill. We removed the rule to publish the names of political prisoners. Instead, the government must give Parliament a yearly report on its human rights work. This lets committees question the minister, study these cases, and hear from experts.”

“Madam Speaker, yes, this is important. Originally, the bill called for the minister’s office to publish the names of political prisoners we have been advocating for. After reflection and testimonies that were heard at the committee, it was decided to take that component out. However, it allows us to ensure that the Government of Canada is always standing up, first and foremost, for human rights in Canada and around the world and for actions taken to promote human rights around the world. Having it tabled here gives a chance for the foreign affairs committee or others to go through and hear from the minister and study that report and look at the cases that the government is working on, especially on the broad scale. Although it is not in the bill anymore, Parliament has the opportunity, through committees, to hear from diaspora groups and other experts on corruption and gross human rights violations and bring those to the committee, which can report it back to the House.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass my bill. It strengthens our sanctions laws to punish corrupt foreign officials who abuse human rights or harass people living in Canada. It also lets us take frozen foreign assets and give the money to victims.”

“moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise for my private member’s bill, Bill C-219, the international anti-corruption and human rights act, or Sergei Magnitsky law no. 3, which we decided on at committee. I think it is important, every time we start these debates, especially for those who might be watching for the very first time, to ask, why Magnitsky? Who is he? Who is Sergei Magnitsky? We have to remember that Sergei was a Russian lawyer. He was an auditor, a husband and a father of two. He was a guy who believed in fairness. He believed in the rule of law. He believed in standing up for a new Russia. Sadly, because he was not afraid to stand up for what he believed in, was not afraid to stand up for what matters and was not afraid to stand up against oligarchs and corrupt officials in the Kremlin and across Russia, he was murdered. Sergei uncovered the largest tax fraud in Russian history. The proper course of action was obvious to him. He took it to court and exposed the corruption. In doing so, he was the one who was arrested. He was the one who was detained. They tortured him in prison. They denied him medical attention, and eventually he was murdered in a Russian prison by the very officials who had taken this fraud through the Russian government, to the tune of hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars. The Russian government allowed him to be killed and has been trying to cover it up for the past 17 years. Using Sergei Magnitsky’s name, which we have been doing since 2017, is important, in that it delivers a strong political message to Vladimir Putin, to his corrupt oligarchs in the Kremlin and in industry, and of course to the corrupt allies he has around the world, who are not afraid to use corruption to enrich themselves at the expense of the people they are supposed to be representing and protecting or who are not afraid to commit gross human rights violations. Originally, we were going to call the bill the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act. It now has the new name. The bill would change the name of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which we passed back in 2017 and was done by Senator Raynell Andreychuk and me. It would now be called the Sergei Magnitsky law. We would also change the name of the Special Economic Measures Act to the global sanctions and special economic measures act. It would be called the Sergei Magnitsky law no. 2, to keep it all straight and even. It is important to recognize that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the government agreed that we needed to use Sergei Magnitsky’s name every time we lay out a sanction against those who are committing these abuses and committing aggression against their neighbours, as Putin is committing in Ukraine today with the Russian war machine that Putin has, as well as against others around the world who are committing gross human rights violations. Unfortunately, a number of amendments were made to the original version we tabled here. I will just say, for those who have been following this, that the one thing the bill would not do anymore is it would not immediately sanction family members of sanctioned individuals whom Canada has recognized and put on our global sanctions list. It would just be those individuals and not their spouses, children, girlfriends or boyfriends. We know that Russian oligarchs have done an amazing job of taking their wealth out of their country. Even though they might be sanctioned and cannot move their wealth or travel to Canada or other places, they have been sending their children to university here with millions of dollars. They have been sending their wives and spouses over to Canada, putting up bank accounts and getting around the rules we have. Of course, they are using Canada as a safe haven. The other ones who are really good at this is those in the IRGC, with the regime in Tehran. It is the same thing. They are moving here with their families and spouses, hiding assets and buying amazing properties. It would be nice if we could sanction their children, spouses and other family members on the immediate family level so that this does not happen. The bill would no longer require the RCMP and FINTRAC to report to the minister on what is happening and whether there should be sanctions coming forward. It would no longer require the minister to report names and the status of prisoners of conscience in an annual report on human rights. It would also not amend the Broadcasting Act to make sure that state broadcasters from countries that are committing a genocide recognized in the House or in the Senate would not be allowed to broadcast on our airwaves. We are still happy with the bill in this form. I may have been fairly ambitious in bringing it forward the first time. When we were still in a minority government situation, it looked like it was going to go through, maybe without any amendments, but that changed, unfortunately. We have to accept that and roll with the punches, as one might say. I want to again mention former Senator Raynell Andreychuk. She and I worked very hard together back in 2017 to bring the original Sergei Magnitsky Law to Parliament. I did it in the House, and she brought it forward and passed it through the Senate, and it became law. Even at that time, back in 2017, there was collaboration among all parties to make sure that it was passed and that we were finally targeting the corrupt foreign officials who were committing gross human rights violations. It is important to note that the reason we have to come back to this is that there were some loopholes, and I have already pointed out some of them. In this version of Bill C-219, we would close those loopholes and address some of the shortcomings. This means that we would be better aligned with our allies and how they sanction, whether it is the United States, the European Union, Australia or others. It would also provide better coordination among the legislation and regulations we have right here in Canada. Having the three bills come together under this umbrella private member’s bill, which is uncommon in this House, and coordinating three pieces of legislation into one would be a positive move. It would make it a lot easier, in the administration of justice, to address things like human rights, state aggression and gross human rights violations. I want to point out what this bill would do, and I think it is important that we celebrate it. This is the first time in Canadian law that we would define prisoners of conscience and require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to publish an annual report. That annual report would be tabled here in the House and would require the minister to talk about how the Government of Canada is advancing human rights around the world and how it is supporting prisoners of conscience and other human rights defenders. A lot of people may be asking what a prisoner of conscience is, so I will read it into the record: prisoner of conscience means an individual who, in contravention of international human rights standards, has been detained or otherwise physically restricted solely because of their identity or their conscientiously held beliefs, including religious or political beliefs. We would also define for the very first time what transnational repression is and would sanction the foreign nationals who commit transnational repression right here in Canada and elsewhere around the world: transnational repression means tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders or physically harm such individuals or members of such groups, including elected officials, political dissidents, human rights defenders, exiled journalists, diaspora communities, civil society activists and refugees, for the purpose of silencing dissent and stifling activism.‍ Just so people understand how this would apply here in Canada, I will note that a prisoner of conscience is what we are witnessing right now in Hong Kong with Jimmy Lai, who stood up for the freedom of speech and for democracy in Hong Kong. He is in his late seventies now. He is diabetic. He has been held in detention, in solitary confinement, for the last several years because of his belief in the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, because he owned a paper. He has connections to Canada. His sister, nephews and nieces live here, and he has properties here in Canada. The Chinese regime, the Communist regime that is overseeing the administration in Hong Kong, jailed him on trumped-up charges and finally dragged him in front of a kangaroo court after delaying and staying proceedings for years. Jimmy Lai is languishing in prison. He has been sentenced to life, and he will not last long, sadly enough. He is a prisoner of conscience, and we need to rescue him. The Government of Canada needs to stand up on the right side of this, from the standpoint of human rights. Transnational repression is the flip side of that. As we all know, the Communist regime in Beijing has police stations here in Canada. It has interfered in at least two elections. We had a big judicial inquiry on the foreign interference in our electoral process here. We need to make sure that the individuals who are acting on behalf of the state in Canada to repress our elections, or repress nationals from that country who now call Canada home, are not getting away with it. I received a letter just last week from a Falun Gong practitioner who had been peacefully protesting in Toronto in front of the Chinese consulate and was assaulted by an employee from the consulate. The employee beat this lady and made death threats to her. Not only would we call this a criminal act here in Canada, but because they can hide behind their diplomatic immunity, such individuals would be considered under transnational repression and would have to stand trial for that. Under Bill C-219, we would require that Parliament put out a list of the foreign national entities that are going to be added to our sanctions list. We want to increase the penalties on this and find the people who are committing prisoner-of-conscience abuse and transnational repression. The penalties could be increased up to $100,000 under this piece of legislation, which I think would be a huge move to actually help police all the abuse we are witnessing. One of the great things in the bill is that it would also provide a timeline to the Government of Canada for forfeiting of frozen assets. I always like to use as an example the fact that everybody who goes through Toronto Pearson airport sees the great big Russian Antonov aircraft that is sitting there because it is a frozen asset. The oligarchs who own the company have definitely been sanctioned by Canada. Instead of sitting there, as the aircraft has been for four years, within 24 months, assets should be forfeited and liquidated so the government can then distribute those assets to the victims or to the government. In this case, it would be given to the Ukraine to help them deal with the cost of the war such as the cost of the damage to Ukrainian homes and infrastructure and the loss of life because of the barbaric actions of the Russian military. This is also true with other holdings, but the focus is on those owned by private individuals or private entities, not government entities. If they have been sanctioned, any of their assets here in Canada should, after 24 months, be turned over by the state, Canada, to the victims. Finally, the preamble of the bill calls for the government to continue the good work they are doing in trying to establish the international anti-corruption court in The Hague. With respect to all the people out there who are committing genocides, trampling on human rights and abusing their own citizens or neighbours, those oligarchs, such as Putin in particular but also, historically, people such as the Mussolinis and the Hitlers of the world who committed mass genocides, how did they all start? Putin first started as a corrupt official. By having the international criminal court, we could actually change the behaviour of psychopaths who are in places of power, and have them back off from what they are doing to their own citizenry. In conclusion, I believe, although the original version of Bill C-219 provided more in sanctioning, enforcement and oversight across Canada’s sanctioning regime, that the amended version we have before the House today remains critical for modernizing the sanctions mechanisms for the future.”

“I oppose this defence bill. The government is just reorganizing things again without fixing anything. I think this bill only exists to protect the Prime Minister's friend from having to answer to taxpayers.”

“Mr. Speaker, nobody trusts the Liberals or the secretary of state. After a decade, the Liberals always play political games. We are now on the third iteration of the Prime Minister’s attempt to reinvent the wheel. Nothing changed in the last six months, except that media reported that Doug Guzman wanted to resign after less than a year as CEO of the Defence Investment Agency. Is Bill C-40 nothing more than an attempt to keep the Prime Minister’s BFF from rage quitting because he had to be accountable to taxpayers?”

“The military is short more than 8,600 people. The Liberals broke promises on raises and benefits, cut housing help for troops, and raised their rent. I want the minister to explain why he is making it harder to keep people in our military.”

“Mr. Speaker, everything the Liberals say about our military is just an illusion. They promised our troops raises, but they never materialized. Retention benefits for reserves are missing in action. The Liberal minister is gutting housing support for our troops by up to $7,000 a year, plus he is hiking housing rents on Canadian Armed Forces members. Our military is short over 8,600 personnel and over half of our military occupations are suffering critical staff shortages. Why is the defence minister making retention worse for our soldiers, sailors and aviators?”

“I want us to keep debating this budget bill. It is too big and cuts off debate. It creates a new defence agency that lets the minister avoid fair competition and skip normal rules.”

“Madam Speaker, I have to say I am quite disappointed that here we are again with the Liberals’ shutting down parliamentary debate on such an important bill. Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, is a giant omnibus bill, over 330 pages long, with some proposed major changes to the way government operates. Under division 16 in the budget implementation act is the new defence investment agency act, and that act would open up a door of potential abuse and unethical behaviour by the government. In the section that actually talks about having competition, the Liberals list over 20 different different exemptions from competition, and it would make the minister responsible for the Defence Investment Agency immune from any criticism and give them a get-out-of-jail-free card for why any particular project or competitor is disqualified from that competition. We have this motion, instead of proper debate in the House right now that would allow Parliament to actually explore all the problems within division 16 of the budget implementation act, and instead of actually talking about how defence procurement could be used and abused by the government in power. Why not have the debate? Why do the Liberals always resort to shutting down parliamentary processes, in the name of cover-ups and Liberal largesse?”

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“The government has failed to properly equip the Canadian military. It took them ten years to buy new handguns. Troops in Ottawa are giving up their gear and body armour so soldiers in Latvia can use it. New recruits do not even have enough uniforms or beds.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that if we look at actual things the Liberals have bought for our troops, we see that they have not resulted in increased lethality or kinetic capability within the Canadian Armed Forces. It took the Liberals over 10 years just to replace the sidearms for our forces. Today, members of the Canadian Armed Forces in Ottawa, in the national capital region, have been asked to turn in their rucksacks, sleeping bags, frag vests and body armour because there is not enough to be sent abroad for the people who are deployed in Latvia, where there could be a hot conflict in short order. We know that the people going through basic training right now do not even have enough uniforms, and there are not enough beds. This is a failure of the government to recognize what we need to keep our troops healthy, as well as to make sure that our Canadian Forces has the equipment to deal with the conflicts of today and tomorrow.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The Liberals use tricky math to pretend they spend more on defense. They count non-military spending, like the Coast Guard. They also gave troops a pay raise, but then took that money back by raising rent and other costs.”

“Madam Speaker, the one thing the member for Winnipeg North never talks about is the creative accounting that the Liberals did to get the 2%. They added these in, which have never been added in before, until 2017, and then they added in the big numbers last year: veterans pensions; the Canadian Coast Guard’s entire budget, even though it is not a defensive organization nor does it have the ability to be a defensive organization; and Transport Canada airplanes. The pay raise the Liberals gave was long overdue, yet today there are still forces members who have not received the benefits or the bonuses for staying on as members, especially for those who serve in the Canadian reserves. The army reserves have not had those benefits yet at all. The Liberals can sit here and talk the game, but we know that, even with the increases in salaries, they have clawed them back by increasing rents on our troops. They have increased the living differentials, especially for the people who are now deployed overseas in Latvia. Their take-home pay has dropped since the so-called raise, because the Liberals are clawing it back through other deductions. If we had used the same math when we were government, our spending would have been well over 1.5%.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Leah Gazan

“I want the House to reject this budget bill. It creates an unaccountable new agency for buying military gear, adds useless bureaucracy, and lets ministers buy gear without open competition. The bill also does nothing to lower the high cost of living, cut fuel taxes, or fix the carbon tax on farmers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary East for his intervention today and for laying out exactly how bad the Liberals have been, especially when it comes down to things like balancing the budget. Bill C-31 is over 330 pages. We look at this thing and they are doing everything in here. So much of it has nothing to do at all with the budget. I want to speak specifically about division 16, which is on the establishment of the defence investment agency act and amending the Defence Production Act and renaming it the defence and national security production and procurement act. We are talking about substantive changes to the way the Liberals want to do procurement. When we start dealing with major changes like this, like giving a new minister new powers with up to $1 billion of spending without any oversight or accountability tied to it, I think these types of changes need to be legislated through their own bills and debated separately. Because this is part of the budget implementation act, we are not even able to study this at the defence committee. It is going to be done through the finance committee, which has to look at everything else in the budget, not just the changes that are happening to the defence investment and procurement processes that are currently under way with the government. We have been quite critical of how the government has gone and set up the Defence Investment Agency. What we are seeing is more layers of bureaucracy, another level of red tape, and it is just another illusion the Liberals are trying to pull on Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces. They are saying they are doing something when, in actuality, they are doing nothing. They went and hired a CEO. Doug Guzman is a lovely gentleman and I had a chance to meet him, but he comes to the table with no defence experience. He has no procurement background at all. His claim to fame is that he is an investment banker, and a very successful one at that. He used to be the Prime Minister’s colleague at Goldman Sachs back in the day. We have a junior secretary of state who is overseeing the Defence Investment Agency, but again, it does not provide that one point of accountability in ensuring that our parliamentary processes are properly respected. We have a junior minister who is still reporting to another minister who then has to report back up to the Prime Minister. A junior minister, being the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, does not sit at the cabinet table. We also have been critical about the fact that the Defence Investment Agency is about how the government can coerce more jobs out of other companies that are going to want to do defence contracts, but will those jobs ever actually materialize? How much is it going to cost the taxpayer? How much more is the defence equipment we are buying for the Canadian Armed Forces going to cost because they have tied in all these extra things they want to do with the dollars they are spending? The top priority has to be making sure we are getting the right equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. As Conservatives, we have always supported the proud women and men who serve in uniform. We expect them to do dangerous things in the protection of Canada and to work with our allies. We have to make sure every decision we make is a prioritization of the equipment and kit that is required by the Canadian Armed Forces to do that job. We have to be capable. We have to be ready. We have to make sure the stuff we are buying is meeting those operational requirements and that we are interoperable with our allies and neighbours. Let us make sure we are not just creating more red tape, more bureaucracy or more cost in the name of a defence investment agency. We have been down this path before. The Liberals’ track record on this for the past 10 years has been pitiful, as it was under the decade of darkness back in the day under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. What we get is all rhetoric and no action. We need to make sure we are taking action. It has been more than four years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The minister of the day talked about putting Canada on war footing with the defence industry. That never ever materialized. Here we are, four years after the fact, and the only increases in the production of munitions, artillery shells and rockets in this country have all been through contracts with the U.S. armed services, whether that is its army, air force, special services or navy. Those same benefits are not occurring for the Canadian Armed Forces, because the government has not signed any contracts. We can have all the agencies, bureaucracies, red tape and fancy announcements, but it means nothing unless we are actually putting ink to the dotted line and signing contracts with our defence industry that would then create the jobs because we are buying stuff that the Canadian Armed Forces needs to replace the hollowed out air force and army and the rusted out navy we currently have. Just to make that point, the results for 2024-25 for the Department of National Defence show that only 59.6% of the maritime fleet is serviceable and ready to go out on operations. The only reason it is at 60% is that it had to retire the entire fleet of our Kingston-class coastal maritime vessels. Only 51% of the land fleets are sitting at the ready and are well maintained so troops can use them. It is because of the underfunding for the national procurement of the aging fleet and because of the high operational tempo. They have been worn out and have not been properly maintained, because of budget cuts that happened under the Liberals. Over $2.7 billion a year was cut from 2021 to 2025. We know that the aerospace fleet is even worse, with only 42% of our aircraft in the Canadian Armed Forces ready to serve and having the proper maintenance, but they are so aged out and so worn out. All we have to do is look at our CF-18s and the debacle with respect to their replacement. Because of the political games the Prime Minister plays with the F-35s, we have to get the F-35s to do the job. What we are seeing in Bill C-31, in division 16, with the establishment of the defence investment agency act, is that it would lock in all the inefficiencies that are already under the Defence Investment Agency. The bill does not name who the designated minister would be. There is no title or styling for that minister; it would just be a designated minister. It could be the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, or the Minister of National Defence, which I think would not be a bad idea, or there may be the creation of another junior minister who would not have the power and strength to go to the cabinet table and make the investments that are required to drive home what is asked for by our forces. The bill would establish more boards, more advisory committees and more people who are going to be hired. We are talking about more patronage and more Liberal insiders. We see, as we read through the bill, in clause 310, more opportunities for sole-sourcing and not running competitive competitions. Although it says in clause 322 that there would be a competitive procurement process, if we look at the exceptions, we see that almost everything could be excepted from it, and the minister would have the power to exclude companies and individuals from participating in the procurement but never say why they were excluded. There would be no transparency. What would the procurement ombudsman say about this lack of competition and the ability to sole-source without proper explanation? If the national security exemption is required, let us make sure we use it. This would create more contracting, more consultants and more Liberal insiders getting rich, which is the type of corruption we have to prevent. That is why we are asking why there are some rather strange definitions in the bill, such as “things”. There would be no guardrails, other than defence services, which is in clause 318, proposed paragraph 16(3)(d): “acquire defence services or professional or commercial services other than defence services”. Why are we even putting that under the defence investment act? The fact there would be no reporting, no performance and no transparency really raises a lot of red flags. Clause 312 would provide for the ability of the minister to procure shares of corporations; replace all members, directors and officers; and then place people in there the minister wants to run those organizations or those companies. It sure sounds a lot like nationalization. We have been down this path before with the Liberal government. It is called the Emergencies Act, and this reeks of having that overreach and that unaccountable style that we saw with the Emergencies Act. To conclude, I move, seconded by the member for Calgary East: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, since the bill fails to address meaningfully the cost of the living crisis which Canadians are facing through measures such as complete fuel tax relief, removing taxes and red tape which drive up housing costs, cutting the industrial carbon tax imposed on farmers and everyone else in the country’s food chain, and eliminating wasteful government spending, all of which have driven up inflation including food price inflation”.”