Debates of Oct. 26th, 2022

Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for the motion he has brought forward in Parliament today. It is a good motion. Indeed, the Conservative Party of Canada stood with a unanimous consent motion, and we also put forward another opposition motion in the House of Commons, on this very subject.

The member opposite spoke frequently about not making this a partisan issue, so I would like to ask him a very concrete question on some of those votes and even on the concurrence motion we voted on this week, where there was an abstention from the government members of the Liberal Party. What can we do to convince the Government of Canada to stand with Parliament in opposing the Uighur genocide taking place in China right now?

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is an important question. We are politicians. We know conversation and dialogue are important in what we are doing, so that is what I am doing. I am personally having robust conversations, and I encourage the member to do so as well.

When we do so, let us do so in order to win people, to open up people's hearts, so they can see the merits of what we are pleading. If we approach things with that in mind, to allow people to come and join us, I expect they will. I am confident, though, that this will happen with hopefully all of us.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend from Pierrefonds—Dollard on his speech. We know that he is very committed. Many people in the House have been working on the Uighur file for a very long time.

It is unfortunate that when we say that Parliament has spoken with one voice, that is not entirely true. My Conservative friend just raised the issue. When we voted on the Conservative motion, with the Bloc's friendly amendment, the executive and the Prime Minister abstained.

It is very difficult for us to fight a problem if we cannot name it. We have to call a spade a spade. When it is genocide, we must call it genocide. Genocide is no small matter. There is all kinds of evidence. The Subcommittee on International Human Rights made that known.

My question is simple. I understand that we must speak with one voice, but when will we speak with one voice in this Parliament?

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois member for his question.

I hope we will speak with one voice. I do not yet know if that will happen, but I hope it will.

For now, I think we are on the right track. Twenty members of Parliament supported this motion, and that includes members from across all parties in the House. I hope that we will continue in this direction until the end.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard for his motion, his speech and his commitment to the Uighur issue, which is also very important to New Democrats.

We certainly support this move. We need to stand up for human rights and speak out against the genocide that the Uighurs are being subjected to, their treatment and forced labour.

If Parliament is speaking with one voice, or almost one voice, what would my colleague like to see the government do now?

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I tabled this motion in the hope that the government would support it.

I always have the hope and the belief it will happen. As somebody who was an activist in the past, I believe everything is possible with effort.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this motion and everybody who is joining us for this debate. I know there are many people present in the precinct and following along online.

I have the honour of being the co-chair, along with my friend, the mover of this motion, of the parliamentary friendship group for Uighurs. That is one of many reasons that I am proud to speak in support of Motion No. 62 and express the support of the Conservative Party for this motion. I expect that when it comes to a vote, we will be able to speak united and with one voice.

I think there is a critically important role for the official opposition, which is to support the government in the areas we agree with and challenge the government when there are gaps in the response.

This issue is deeply personal for me. It is not hard to tell that I am not of Uighur background myself, but my grandmother was a Holocaust survivor. She was a Jewish child who grew up in Germany and hid out, and many of her family members were killed. I was raised with an awareness of the grievous injustice that had been visited upon her extended family. She was in a position, as a vulnerable child and a member of a persecuted minority, where she was not able to speak out about her own situation, but she survived the war because people who had a voice and had an opportunity to speak had the courage to speak out against what was happening, the injustices that were happening.

I have a big portrait on the wall in my office of Blessed Clemens von Galen, who was the bishop of the Munster area of Germany where she was. He was a bold, fearless critic of the Nazis, someone who had a position of privilege within that society and used his position to speak out against injustice.

A couple of years ago, my sister and I took a trip to Berlin. We were looking at the sites of deportation. What strikes Canadians when they go to Europe is how much closer everything is together. We are used to wide open spaces. We saw the streets through which Jews were brought to a train station and where they were being sent away, and what struck me was the apartment buildings that are close by where people, everyday Germans, would have been living. They would have been able to look down and see their former neighbours and people from their community being pushed and herded away to their deaths.

When I was there with my sister, we talked about this, and I wondered what these people were thinking, the ones who could see what was going on. Perhaps they had a mix of perspectives and knew it was wrong but were afraid in some way of the consequences of speaking out for truth and justice. What were they thinking? Why did they not do more?

At the end of the Second World War, we made a promise to my grandmother's generation of “never again”. Never again would we allow people to be slaughtered because of their ethnic or religious background. We would do everything possible to make genocide a crime and stop it everywhere. However, in the seven years I have spent as a member of Parliament, we have recognized and responded to not one but multiple cases of ongoing genocide. It is clear that we have failed to deliver on the promise we made to my grandmother's generation.

I think about those apartment buildings and the people who could see the injustice happening in front of them. Today, we have satellite imagery. We do not need to be in apartment buildings directly above what is happening. We can see the photographs. We can look at the numbers and see the precipitous drop in birth rates as a result of forced abortion, forced sterilization and systemic sexual violence targeting the Uighur community.

I owe it to my grandmother and to those like her to use the voice I have now to speak out against contemporary injustices, recognize the failure to live up to that promise of “never again” and do all we can to respond.

The first step should be a recognition of the crime of genocide, because in the history of jurisprudence following the Second World War, we tried to establish this crime of genocide and establish a responsibility to protect. Individual nations that are a party to the genocide convention have an obligation. It is not just an obligation where there is conclusive proof of genocide, but an obligation when there is evidence that genocide may be occurring.

Those obligations exist for individual states who are parties to that convention. Those obligations do not depend on whether some international body determines it to be a genocide. Those obligations are for individual states who are signatories to the genocide convention. Canada is a signatory, so Canada has obligations. We have a responsibility to act to protect when we see a genocide happening or when there is evidence to suggest that there may be a genocide happening.

This testimony was clearly given by former justice minister Irwin Cotler at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights when we studied this question. He made clear in his testimony that not one but all five of the possible conditions of the genocide convention have likely been transgressed in the case of Uighurs. The evidence was clear then, and the evidence is more clear now than it was then. When this Parliament first voted on the question of genocide recognition, it was before some of the new information that has come out since and various other tribunals that have made all the more clear the situation we are in.

The problem is that, since nations have recognized that they have an obligation to respond to genocide and that they have an obligation to protect in the case of genocide, those same nations have become reluctant to acknowledge that a genocide is taking place, because when they acknowledge that a genocide is happening, then they are legally obliged to act. However, whether or not they are willing to admit that they know, they do know because the evidence is clear. To paraphrase William Wilberforce, we may choose to look away, but in the face of the evidence, we may never again say that we did not know.

The evidence has been there, yet again this week we had a motion before the House on genocide recognition. Everyone who voted, voted in favour of genocide recognition, but the cabinet still abstained. This is extremely important because, if the government had voted in favour of that motion, it would be recognizing the legal obligations it has under the genocide convention, but it still failed to do that. I salute members of all parties who have been prepared to take that step nonetheless, but it would be that much more impactful if the cabinet, if the Government of Canada, was prepared to take that step.

The House of Commons, by the way, has led in the world. We were the first democratic legislature in the world to recognize the Uighur genocide, and many other legislatures followed. Ironically, while our legislature has led, the government has not yet taken that step.

Nonetheless, there are still so many more things that we can do and we need to do. Now we are seeing myriad private member's motions and bills coming from various parties that respond to the recognition that at least individual members have, if not the government, that a genocide is taking place. We have Motion No. 62, which seeks to advance targeted immigration measures to support Uighurs. We have various pieces of legislation, such as Bill S-211 and Bill S-204, that seek to address forced labour. We have proposals, such Bill C-281, which would strengthen our sanctions regime and allow parliamentary committees to nominate individuals for sanction.

We see this flurry of activity now from members of Parliament and senators using the power that we have as parliamentarians to respond to this recognition of genocide, but the ultimate power rests in the hands of the government. It is the government that has to act, even in the case of the motion before us, which is a non-binding motion that makes a recommendation to the government. It is an important tool to encourage the government to act.

Of course, the government did not have to wait for Motion No. 62, and it does not need to wait for it now. The motion contains a timeline that is fairly generous to the government, fair enough, but I would challenge the government to take up its responsibility. Individual members of Parliament are doing what we can to be a voice for the voiceless to recognize the reality, and the government must as well.

I believe that every single member of this cabinet who has looked at the evidence knows that a genocide is happening and knows that they have an obligation. It will be to their eternal shame if they do not act on that knowledge as soon as possible.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan gave an excellent speech, and I want to commend him for it. It is always a pleasure to work with him, particularly on the file that we are discussing this evening.

I think I am kicking this off by being transpartisan. Just last week, I was saying that we have different ideas in the House. It is not always easy working with my colleagues from other parties, but I am not in the habit of playing partisan games. I even think that, most of the time, being transpartisan helps me to do my job properly. In politics, there are issues where partisanship has no place. Obviously, human rights issues fall into that category.

It will therefore come as no surprise to anyone when I say that, like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I support Motion No. 62, which seeks to protect the Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims from China by resettling them in Canada. I know that many of my friends from the Uighur community are in the gallery this evening. I want to sincerely welcome them.

On October 21, 2020, the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights issued a statement in which it said:

The Subcommittee unequivocally condemns the persecution of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang by the Government of China. Based on the evidence put forward during the Subcommittee hearings, both in 2018 and 2020, the Subcommittee is persuaded that the actions of the Chinese Communist Party constitute genocide as laid out in the Genocide Convention.

In a way, Motion No. 62 is a continuation of past positions taken by the House. It contains four demands that I will sum up for those who are watching us: the recognition that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims from China have emigrated to escape repression and intimidation by the Chinese state; the recognition that many third countries face pressure from China to deport those it refers to as “critics”; the need to welcome refugees over a period of two years starting in 2024; and the need for the government to table a report with a detailed plan within 120 sitting days following the adoption of the motion.

That is the motion. I just want to reiterate this. Motion No. 62 states that Parliament determined that China's treatment of Uighurs is genocide, but, as mentioned earlier, the council of ministers cravenly abstained during the vote on the previous motion. As I speak here in the House, close to two million Uighurs and Turkic Muslims are being held in concentration camps that Chinese authorities odiously refer to as “vocational training centres”.

Mass rapes and numerous acts of torture are being committed in these camps. Women are being forcibly sterilized, adults and children are being kidnapped, and surveillance camera systems are being combined with artificial intelligence software to track Uighurs around the globe. A full-fledged campaign of cultural erasure is also being waged, including the indoctrination of prisoners and the suppression of all Uighur cultural expression.

The facts are disturbing. Parliamentarians of all parties are aware of them. I do not know how the House will vote on my colleague's motion, but one thing is certain: Nobody can plead ignorance. In fact, next to turning a blind eye, ignorance is the greatest ally of totalitarian regimes. Let us not be ignorant. Let us not be blind.

At this very moment, the most awful crime that a government can perpetrate against its own citizens is taking place: genocide. The Bloc Québécois has been at the forefront of denouncing the genocide against the Uighurs, notably by amending the February 2021 motion to force the government to demand that the Olympic Games be moved out of China. The government settled for a diplomatic boycott that had no effect.

In response to this proposal and that of the Bloc Québécois, some people told us that we should not mix politics and sport. Our response was that when we are confronted with a genocide, it is no longer a question of politics. It is a question of human rights, a question of crimes against humanity. I made that effort so that justice could be done. We did it so that justice could be done. We did it for the Uighurs, so that the crimes of China's regime would not be unjustly rewarded with the prestige of hosting the world's best athletes in its capital city.

Much like the 1936 Berlin Games, history will unfortunately remember the Beijing Olympic Winter Games as the games of shame. As both a member of Parliament and as a human being, I simply cannot accept the status quo.

My colleague's motion calls on the Government of Canada to welcome 10,000 Uighur and other Turkic Muslim refugees from China over a two-year period beginning in 2024. As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports the motion.

Nevertheless, part of me still believes that this is a bit arbitrary. Why is the number of refugees set at 10,000? What bothers me about this number is that the Uighur advocacy groups that I speak with every day are saying that this is not enough, that we should take in many more.

The Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has once again applied a double standard to this situation. This is probably the result of political rather than humanitarian decisions. I cannot say for sure, which is why federal immigration programs need to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that they are fair going forward when it comes to welcoming refugees.

I want to point out that Motion No. 62 calls on the government to table in the House, within 120 sitting days following its adoption, a report on how the refugee resettlement plan will be implemented. That is a good thing, because we know the Liberal government has a tendency to ignore motions from the House of Commons.

The government must respond quickly to make sure that the plan does not end up gathering dust on a shelf, like many immigration and refugee files do. Requiring the government to table a report is necessary and even essential, but it seems to me that 120 sitting days is much too long for members of the Uighur community to wait. The government needs to respond much more quickly than that.

At the risk of repeating myself, I want to close with a reminder. I often have the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to motions proposed by all of the parties, and I think that we are all on the same side when it comes to providing assistance, and rightly so. I would remind members that a genocide is taking place as I stand before the House today. As parliamentarians, we must work for the common good without any partisanship, and that is especially true when it comes to human rights issues. It is with that in mind that I support my colleague's motion, but I am mainly supporting it because I stand for the principles of justice, and it is high time that justice prevailed for my Uighur friends.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who are standing in the House tonight defending the Uighur people. I agree with many of my colleagues when they say this is an issue that is beyond partisan politics. This is not an issue that we should be bickering about. This is an issue that all parliamentarians must come together for.

I was elected in 2019 and the very first committee I was put on was the international human rights subcommittee. I was put on that committee, I believe, because I have done work in international human rights for most of my career. One of the very first studies we undertook within that committee was to look at what was happening to the Uighur people, to the people in Xinjiang. It was very difficult testimony. I have said that in this House before. It was among the most difficult things I have heard, the stories of torture, of rape, of forced sterilization; of surveillance. The horrific testimony that we heard from people who had escaped was almost impossible to hear.

I have mentioned in this place before that for me, my job was to bear witness. My job was to hear that testimony. I did not have to endure what we have asked the Uighur people to endure. I was elected in 2019, so I am a relatively new parliamentarian, but I have to say that it has been three years. I have been a member for three years and I have not seen the action that we need to see to protect the Uighur people. We have not seen action by the government that would make me think it is taking this genocide seriously, that it is acting with the urgency that is required.

There are many people in this place right now that have loved ones who are still in concentration camps, that they may not know where they are, that they know have been tortured, that they know have had to endure horrific experiences. To those people, as a parliamentarian in Canada, I have to say I am sorry. I am sorry that we have let them down, that we have not done everything we can to stop the genocide that we all have agreed is happening to their people. I am sorry that we have not been strong enough, that we have not done what we needed to do.

We did declare this a genocide. This Parliament did say that this is a genocide and we do have obligations when we recognize that; every one of us. We all look at the horrific genocides that have happened in history. We said never again; never will we put the lives of people at risk this way; never will we turn a blind eye to the death of a people, and yet for three years we have been doing that. For longer than three years we have been doing that.

I am extremely proud to support the motion that has been brought forward by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard. I am very happy that I have been able to work with him at the international human rights subcommittee. I am very happy that I have been able to work with members from all parties on this important work.

I am extremely proud of my colleague for the work that he has done and what he has brought forward. Of course I am concerned about the fact that when we have votes in the House, cabinet does not participate. Of course I am concerned that this is a motion. We know that a motion is not binding. We know that a motion is not legislation. It is not protecting Uighurs the way we need to. I understand this may be what he felt he was able to achieve at this point with the government, but it is not enough. It is not near enough. This does not go far enough to protect the people. As parliamentarians, as people who believe in human rights, as people who believe in human dignity, it does not go as far as we need it to go.

I will say that in terms of the immigration issues that this motion brings forward, bringing 10,000 people to Canada who are fleeing violence, of course I support that. I do not understand and never will understand why every single persecuted group in the world is not given the unlimited number that certain persecuted groups in the world are given.

I will never understand why it is unlimited Ukrainians, and I am a hundred per cent in support of unlimited Ukrainians coming to Canada to flee persecution from the Russian war in their country. However, I do not understand why it is not unlimited people coming from other countries as well. I do not understand how we can put that value in place, how we can say that for some it is unlimited and for some we have a 10,000 limit. I do not understand it.

The other piece that we really need to talk about here tonight is that this motion calls for allowing 10,000 Uighurs fleeing violence to come to Canada, but we are not doing enough to make sure that the Uighurs in concentration camps, the Uighurs in China, can actually come to Canada. They are being held in concentration camps and tortured in China, and many of them are unable to get to safety.

As a member of the international community, we also have a very big obligation to be doing what we can to ensure that the government in China is being held to account. Canada used to be a diplomatic powerhouse. We are not a giant powerhouse. We are not a massive economy or whatnot. However, we used to be seen as a convenor, a clear diplomat, a leader in terms of diplomacy. We used to have an ability to bring countries together, to bring groups forward to work together and to bring action.

Unfortunately, I do not feel like Canada has the ability to do that anymore. I feel like we have undermined our ability to do that, that we have in fact put trade at the top of all our relationships to the detriment of our relationships with regard to diplomacy, to the detriment of our relationships with development. We do not have relationships anymore that we can use to push things forward.

A perfect example for me is that the human rights council was going to have a debate on the Uighur genocide. They really did need to get the votes from countries around the world to participate. China has a massive power, and it used that massive power to cajole, bully, force and make other countries vote on its side. It used all these different tricks and tools. As a country, we do not have the ability to push back on that any longer. That is a mistake. That is a place we have failed to be able to protect the Uighur people.

I would like to see us invest in diplomacy. I would like to see us invest in building those relationships so we can bring our allies and other democracies together, and so that as a common voice we are standing up for the Uighur people. As a common voice we have more ability to put pressure on the Chinese government to ensure that it is stopping the genocide against the Uighur people.

The support from multilateral institutions is key to making sure those institutions have unfettered access. That is a key thing that Canada can do to make sure we are able to report adequately on what is happening in China and invest in support for human rights activists.

The incredible human rights activists who are part of the Uighur population, who are standing up for Uighurs around the world, have raised their voices for years to get support, and Canada could play an important role in protecting them while they fight for their people, while they fight for the people in their communities.

Finally, I have to say that as a Parliament, as a government, as a country, we must all stand and be very unified in condemning what is happening in China against the Uighur people. That includes our cabinet. That includes the government. That includes every member of the House of Commons. We need to stand together, condemn what is happening there and raise our voices to say, “No, we are not putting trade ahead of human lives. No, we are not going to say that money is more important than people. Not this time. Not anymore.”

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, it is with an immense sense of responsibility that I rise in the House to speak to a motion that I am sponsoring as the seconder.

I would like to take my colleagues back to 2009. Many things were happening in 2009. The world was still in the grips of the great financial crisis, Barack Obama had just been elected and the people of Iran were holding massive protests against the Islamic regime. Some things change while others do not.

I want to take my colleagues to the city of Urumqi, capital of the Uighur autonomous region of Xinjiang, also known as East Turkestan.

On July 5, 2009, a peaceful protest turned violent after the police used force to subdue the protesters. The riots lasted several weeks. These events were the impetus for the Chinese government to launch a broad campaign of expulsions, detention and torture against its Uighur citizens under the guise of combatting terrorism.

Since then, the repression has intensified considerably. The Chinese government has imprisoned millions of Uighurs, most of them over the past five years. We have seen terrifying images of internment camps built for the sole purpose of suppressing the identity of the Uighur people.

The so-called “Xinjiang papers”, published in 2019 by The New York Times, detailed China's policies of surveillance and control of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. Those who are not imprisoned find themselves under ever more intense surveillance. Forced labour and forced sterilizations are two of the main tools used to oppress the local population and erase their identity.

In keeping with its modus operandi of using coercive diplomacy, the Chinese government is exerting immense pressure on countries around the world to turn a blind eye to these grave violations in Xinjiang, and I am sorry to say that it is paying off.

Earlier this month, the UN Human Rights Council refused to open a debate on China's human rights violations in the region. Seventeen countries were on the right side of history, while 19 countries gave in to Chinese blackmail.

This comes a few months after China put considerable pressure on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to bury a report on China's human rights abuses. Although it was announced in September 2021 that the report was being finalized, it was only released on August 31, 2022, in the final minutes of the commissioner's tenure. It is widely speculated that the final report was watered down under pressure from China.

In a rules-based system, the United Nations should be a place where light is shone on these issues, and I find myself wondering how the international community or Canadians can trust the United Nations when, just last year, Iran was elected to the United Nations top legislative body on women's rights. There are no words.

Canada does value the international rules-based order, but Canada also has a long history of standing for what is right, even when it is uncomfortable or difficult. On this issue, there is no grey area. I am certainly heartened by the cross-partisan agreement on this issue. In February of last year, as we have said in the House, we recognized China's actions in Xinjiang as genocide. Just yesterday, the House once again voted unanimously to recognize this genocide and call for more action to protect Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in third countries who find themselves exposed to the risk of deportation back to China.

The motion before us today, brought by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, which I proudly seconded this evening, builds on this action by calling for the admission into Canada of 10,000 Uighur and Turkic Muslims in need of protection.

This is about standing for what is right. It is also about sending a clear message to China and all authoritarian regimes around the world that Canada will not be intimidated, that Canada will continue to stand for its values no matter the consequences.

As long as China continues to violate the human rights of its people, as long as it continues to threaten Taiwan, to repress Hong Kong, as long as it continues to intimidate and harass people not only in its country, but also here on Canadian soil, and as long as it continues to empower regimes like Russia and Iran, we here in this House must continue to call China out and work with our allies to respond effectively.

With the time that I have remaining, I would like to speak on a more personal level to the reasons why I feel so strongly about this motion and about speaking up.

As a young Jewish teenager in Montreal in the 1990s, I had the privilege of meeting many Holocaust survivors. I remember those conversations vividly.

On one occasion, a woman addressed a group of us to recount her harrowing experience in concentration camps. There are pieces of her story that I hear to this day when I close my eyes at night, such as how she would keep little crusts of bread in the folds of her ragged clothes so that at night when there was a child crying she could give the child something. At the end of her presentation, I remember asking her very innocently what I could do, me, a 15-year-old girl who was deeply touched by her story. She looked at me and said, “It is up to you and your generation to make sure that this never happens again.”

On another occasion, I remember walking up on stage to meet a Holocaust survivor. He had just told his story. I do not have the strength to recount it here, but I remember feeling that I had to go up to him to get closer to him and touch his hand to see that he was made of the same flesh and bones as I was. I had to know that he was real. Again, the only thing I could think of at the time to say to this Holocaust survivor was to ask him what I could do. He looked at me with a piercing glance and said, “I need to know that you will speak up. I need to know before I die that my suffering was not in vain. I need to know that “never again” means something to you.” I looked at him and gave him, and many Holocaust survivors, my commitment that I would stand up and ensure that “never again” would mean something, and I do so today in this House.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege and a pleasure to be able to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the constituents of Regina—Wascana.

There have been many times when I have risen in this House to speak, but I would have to say there have been few on an issue as important and as serious as this one, the issue of freedom for the Uighur people, or for any people, for that matter, but in this particular case, we are talking about the Uighurs and their right to live their lives as they so choose free of government oppression.

I often think that in this country we take freedom for granted and we tend to think that freedom is free. For someone like myself, who was born and raised in this country, I have a unique perspective in that I have not been on the front lines, so to speak, of a genocide, a holocaust or a war, but I think that we Canadians can learn from people from other parts of the world who have not been so privileged or so lucky and who have earned their freedom—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The member will have time remaining when the matter is next before the House.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Economy

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I originally posed the question of whether any of the spend-DP-Liberals thought about monetary policy a few weeks ago because the Prime Minister had already admitted he does not spend much time thinking about it. He also thought that budgets balance themselves, inflation was transitory and it was okay to borrow $400 billion because interest rates were low.

A few things have changed in those few weeks since I first posed the question. The Liberal-NDP coalition government has been driving up the cost of living. The more the Prime Minister spends, the more things are costing, and it is not just inflation that we are dealing with now, it is people's lives because they are having to consider monetary policy and make a choice between buying groceries or heating their homes. They are having to make the choice between putting fuel in their vehicles to go to work, or not.

Interest rates are rising faster than they have in decades. People and families are at risk of losing their homes because they cannot make increasing mortgage payments. It is to the point that over one-half of Canadians are cutting back on groceries to cope with rising prices because of the thing elite Liberals think is just inflation. This means there are situations like the one I heard about just this morning. It came from Lyle, who said that he was shopping yesterday and the elderly person in front of him had to put four apples back as she could not afford them. He said that the increase in carbon taxes are driving up the costs of everything from home heating to food, and that the current government is completely out of touch with Canadians. That is what Lyle said.

All this need not be. If the government had been prudent and responsible and considered monetary policy, it would have done things like not wasted $54 million on a punitive ArriveCAN scam and scrapped the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank. Let us not forget the WE scandal, the millions to Loblaws for refrigerators and so much more wasteful spending.

On top of that, had Liberals not squandered an extra $200 billion in spending not related to COVID, Canadians would not be feeling the pain they are now, but the government chooses not to pay attention to monetary policy, so now Canadians are receiving the bill for that massive $500-billion deficit. They are seeing typical mortgages go up by $7,000 a year and having to pay so much more attention to their household monetary policy just to put food on the table and keep the heat on. On top of all this, the Liberal-NDP coalition is planning to triple the carbon tax, further increasing and inflating the cost of gas, groceries and home heating, just as we approach winter in Canada, when heating is not a luxury but a necessity.

I am sure I am probably going to hear an excuse from the other side about where I am going on this, and we are going to hear back from the government saying that inflation is a global phenomenon. The governor of the Bank of Canada now says that inflation is homegrown. It was grown by the Prime Minister and his cabinet's lack of consideration of economic policy.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to discuss monetary policy with my friend from the interior at any time, but his speech actually focused more on fiscal policy, as did his original question. I want everyone who is listening to know that our government is working to build an economy that works for everyone and is focused on tackling affordability.

We have done this while lowering Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio, increasing wages, maintaining Canada's AAA credit rating and maintaining our debt servicing cost at 1% of GDP, almost six times lower than it was in the 1990s.

In the member's original question, which led to this late show, he cited $2.13 per litre for gas in his riding. Indeed, it has been as high as $2.40 in metro Vancouver.

This is an increase of more than a dollar per litre over the last three years. It is putting a tremendous burden on Canadian families. However, we also need to acknowledge that the price on pollution in British Columbia has increased by only two cents during the last three years.

It was nine cents in 2019 and is 11¢ today. That means 98% of that increase has nothing to do with pricing pollution. It is the result of global inflation.

The Conservative Party of Canada readily ignores these facts and therefore ignores 98% of the problem. It also ignores the real cost of climate change. In B.C., we have seen fires devastate communities and spread smoke throughout our summers. We have floods and droughts that have already caused billions of dollars in damage, yet the Conservative Party of Canada continues to call on our government to stop fighting climate change and to mortgage our future.

It does that when it asks us to stop fighting climate change. It does that when it asks us to stop funding seniors' pensions. It does that when it asks us to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. It does that by trying to eliminate the CBC and by trying to stop kids from getting the dental care and education they need. It does that by obstructing assistance for impoverished renters who need it the most.

I do not know if there is such a thing as an economic ostrich, but if there was, it would be a tremendous mascot for the Conservative Party, as it continues to suggest irresponsible economic policies as if its members were committed to keeping their collective heads in the sand. In contrast, our government has put together a plan that makes life more affordable and builds an economy that works for everyone.

In jurisdictions where the federal government has a price on pollution, and B.C., by the way, is not one of those jurisdictions, a rebate is provided through the climate action incentive, which actually makes life more affordable for eight out of 10 Canadian families.

We are also doubling the GST credit for six months, which will provide hundreds of dollars to 11 million families who need it the most and more than 50% of our seniors.

I compliment the member opposite for supporting this measure. I think it is important that we continue to work together to make life more affordable, but we need to do it in a way that is open, honest and transparent.

Let us not use the worst economic shock since the Second World War to gain political points. Canada has a great opportunity in front of it. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Our inflation rate is significantly lower than those of the U.S., Europe and the OECD. We produce a tremendous amount of food and energy, the two commodities that are facing extraordinary price pressures from around the globe.

Our best times are in front of us, but we can get there only if we continue to work together to make life better for all Canadians.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the response from the parliamentary secretary, but he is, unfortunately, very much like the rest of his Liberal colleagues.

He spoke about Conservatives ignoring certain facts, but the fact is that the government is ignoring Canadians, not realizing where the challenges are for people who cannot afford to put food on the table and cannot afford to put fuel in their vehicle to drive to work. They cannot afford the expensive, out-of-control spending the government has done for the past seven years.

The member also spoke about openness, honesty and transparency. I remember, back in 2015, the campaign when the Prime Minister spoke about sunshine being the best disinfectant. This government has covered up everything from the WE scandal to the SNC-Lavalin issue. Openness and transparency are not something the government should be noting.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, I am happy to talk about monetary and fiscal policy any time. I note that the member wanted to change the channel a bit there.

We have developed an affordability plan that makes life more affordable for Canadians. It gets money to people who need it the most, when they need it the most. Canadians from coast to coast to coast can count on us to continue to support them through this period of global elevated inflation.

With Bill C-31, we are proposing to create the Canada dental benefit for families with annual incomes under $90,000. This is literally a piece of legislation that is going to enable children who could not afford to get their teeth fixed to get them fixed. We know good oral hygiene and good dental health lead to better overall health and better productivity. Those investments not only are fair and the right thing to do for those children, but will actually help us grow our economy in the future. This bill also proposes a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit program, to those renters—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The time is up.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Access to Information

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place. A number of months ago, I had the opportunity to ask a question about access to information in Canada, and it is directly related to a study that is ongoing before the ethics committee. The simple and only way that one can accurately describe the Liberal record on access to information is one of failure, full stop.

A comment was made the other day that bears repeating in this place: Everything under the current Liberal government is broken. I hear daily from constituents about the cost of living that is unmanageable. We have a host of new government programs that are being created almost weekly to fix a problem that the government and the Prime Minister, and their flawed ideology created.

The reality is that Canadians are hurting. It seems everything is broken, whether that be passports, ethics and accountability, or any host of other things that we can point to, including Canada's reputation on the world stage.

It leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the Liberals are good at one thing and that is politics. When it comes to governing, to serving Canadians and to doing what is in the best interests of our country, they have shown time and again that they are terrible at governing. The consequence of that is no more clear than it is in the access to information system. Starting in the 2015 campaign, the now Prime Minister tweeted out that it was time for a government without a new scandal every day. It is unbelievable how many new scandals seem to be piling up on that Prime Minister's plate.

When it comes to the promises the Liberals made about sunshine being the best disinfectant, they have created a culture of secrecy. We heard, more times at the ethics committee today than I would be able to reference in the time permitted here, that there is this culture of secrecy, even when the Liberals claim to have fixed it. They are good at politics, but they have failed on delivering, because they brought in what they said were solutions to all the problems through Bill C-58 in the 42nd Parliament. However, the experts agree that it simply made the situation worse. Again, the Liberals are great at politics, and we hear that each and every day through catchphrases, slogans and an incredible ability to turn the issues of the day into something that is not their fault.

For seven years it has been these Liberals stewarding this country. I suggest, on every metric I can think of, that our country is in a worse spot today than it was seven years ago. What is worse is that they often take credit for the good management that took place prior to that. It is the height of hypocrisy when we see the arrogance with which so many issues are approached and all the ways that our country and Canadians are hurting.

When it comes to the access to information system, the culture of secrecy has to stop because Canadians are losing faith in the institutions of government, which is at the very foundation of what a modern democracy needs to have.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Madam Speaker, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot is referring to the information requested in the previous Parliament about the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.

Our government respects the role that parliamentarians play in holding the government to account. However, our government must also respect the laws that Parliament has passed when it responds to orders for the production of papers, especially when the records include classified information. When disclosing information to Parliament, the government is guided by its statutory obligations to keep some information confidential under statutes like the Privacy Act, the Security of Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act. Our government always seeks to balance these interests so that parliamentarians are provided information to hold the government to account.

The original request for documents from the National Microbiology Laboratory was first raised at the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations on March 31, 2021. At that time, PHAC played a lead role in the government's response to the pandemic. PHAC worked diligently to produce the requested records and submitted them to the special committee on April 20, 2021.

The records were redacted because they included information that PHAC was bound by statute to keep confidential. This included national security information that would have been injurious to Canada's reputation if it was disclosed. However, the special committee was not satisfied and reported the matter to the House.

Despite the government's opposition, the House adopted a Conservative opposition day motion on June 2, 2021, to order the production of the unredacted documents within two days. Our government explored options to balance the right of parliamentarians to access information with its duty to protect classified information.

PHAC provided the redacted documents to the law clerk's office on the timeline set out by the order. At the same time, the Minister of Health referred the matter to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP. The unredacted documents were submitted to that committee. Our government believes that this committee is the appropriate mechanism to allow parliamentarians to review unredacted documents while protecting national security information.

The NSICOP has members from both the House and the Senate and a broad mandate to review national security and intelligence activities. Members hold top secret security clearance, swear an oath or solemn affirmation not to disclose confidential information and are permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act. With these safeguards, committee members are able to receive classified briefings and materials. However, opposition parties did not support this approach in the last Parliament.

In the current Parliament, our government remains committed to working collaboratively with opposition parties. On December 2, 2021, the government House leader proposed the creation of an ad hoc committee to allow parliamentarians to scrutinize confidential national security documents. The government based its proposal on the approach the former government proposed, and the House agreed to, in 2010 to give access to information about Afghan detainees.

Members of the ad hoc committee are required to undergo security screening and agree to confidentiality undertakings. A panel of arbiters will mediate questions where the disclosure of confidential national security documents would jeopardize Canada's interests. The New Democratic Party has agreed to participate in the ad hoc committee to review the information that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot is referring to. I urge the member and his party to reconsider their participation.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do find interesting the culture of secrecy that has permeated every aspect of virtually everything the government does. We see that no more clearer than in the case of the Winnipeg microbiology lab and, in part, what seems like an unlimited willingness of the Prime Minister to go to any length necessary to endeavour to cover up his actions, including but not limited to prorogation, calling an election that he promised not to call and using every mechanism imaginable to cover up the actions that he and his government are responsible for.

When it comes to the true facts of the matter, I would simply suggest that the member and other members of the government try to look at the trust that Canadians need to have in their institutions—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government has proposed reasonable options to the House.

The NSICOP and the ad hoc committee would allow the members to scrutinize confidential national security and intelligence information in a venue where the appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure the information is not publicly disclosed. Both options worked.

A similar ad hoc committee was established by the previous government in 2010 to allow parliamentarians to access classified information about Afghan detainees. This is what Speaker Milliken was referring to when he urged members, in 2010, to find a compromise between complying with an order of the House and protecting classified information from public disclosure.

The committee is another mechanism that responds to Speaker Milliken's appeal to the House. Since 2017, parliamentarians from both Houses have worked across party lines to examine and report on national security and intelligence activities. Members undergo the appropriate security measures to ensure that classified information is not disclosed.

Again, I heard the member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant not being present to raise during the Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice had been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

It being 7:27 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:27 p.m.)