Debates of Nov. 25th, 2024

Falun Gong

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

Madam Speaker, next I would like to table a petition that raises concern about the ongoing persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in the People's Republic of China. The petitioners begin by explaining that Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation exercises and moral teachings. It is based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance.

The petitioners state that 25 years ago, the CCP began a campaign of intensive persecution aimed at eradicating Falun Gong. It has included detention, forced labour, prison and torture and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. Two prominent Canadian human rights leaders, David Matas and the late David Kilgour, conducted an important investigation that revealed significant levels of organ harvesting. Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting has gathered many signatures on this issue and has highlighted it at the United Nations.

The petitioners want to see a stronger response from the Government of Canada to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and to see actions by Parliament to do all we can to deter it. Canada has already passed legislation to make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad to receive an organ taken without a person's consent. The petitioners want us to take additional steps, to the extent that we can, to stop this abhorrent practice.

China

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

Madam Speaker, the next petition also deals with human rights and the actions of the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party.

This petition is focused on Hong Kong. It draws the attention of the House to the fact that free and fair trials, traditional independence and the rule of law are key principles in Canada and, sadly, things that have been lost in Hong Kong. Peaceful protesters in Hong Kong have been charged and convicted of penal offences through a judiciary that is now neither impartial nor fair. Some of them have included offences under the national security act, but also under other sections of Hong Kong's penal code.

The petitioners also raise concern about the fact that Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act renders inadmissible to Canada foreign nationals who have been convicted of a foreign offence outside of Canada on the grounds of criminality. This could lead to people who have been involved in pro-democracy activity, and have actually done nothing wrong but simply advocated for their freedoms in Hong Kong, being deemed inadmissible to Canada on the basis of a failure to update our legal realities to the realities on the ground in Hong Kong.

The petitioners, therefore, call on the Government of Canada to take the following steps to recognize the politicization of the judiciary in Hong Kong and its impact on the legitimacy and validity of criminal convictions. They want the government to affirm its position that it would render all national security law-related charges and convictions irrelevant and invalid in terms of determining inadmissibility to Canada; to create a mechanism by which Hong Kong people with pro-democracy movement-related convictions may provide an explanation for such convictions, on the basis of which the government could grant exemptions to Hong Kong people who would otherwise be deemed inadmissible under IRPA; and to work with other like-minded governments such as the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Australia and New Zealand to collaborate around ensuring people from Hong Kong's democracy movement who are not in any real sense criminals would still be able to come to Canada, as well as to other countries to which they might wish to travel.

Freedom of Political Expression

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table another petition in support of Bill C-257, a bill that, coincidentally, stands in my name. I thank the petitioners for bringing this petition to me to table in the House.

The petitioners note that Canadians have a right to be protected against discrimination and that they can face political discrimination. While there are various other prohibited grounds of discrimination, political belief is not currently included in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-257 would add political belief or activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. In addition to protecting Canadians from discrimination, it would allow for free and open debate within Canada without people being worried about consequences.

The petitioners want the House to support Bill C-257 and also defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political beliefs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Another member wishes to table a petition. The hon. member has had an opportunity to table quite a few of them, so I will allow the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to table a petition.

News Media Industry

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will interrupt the 15 minutes of the day the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan tables petitions and table one of my own.

My petition is from residents in my riding who are concerned that radio and television journalists and the loss of local programming are impacting them negatively. They are bringing to the attention of the government the crucial role of local coverage and why it is so important.

Therefore, the petitioners are asking the government to extend the Canadian journalism labour tax credit to include radio and television; support Canadian-owned media by dedicating 70% of federal advertising dollars toward local radio, TV, print and digital media; and eliminating tax deductions for advertising purchased on foreign-owned Internet-delivered media sites and services.

Human Organ Trafficking

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I thank the people who have taken the time to write out their concerns to the government in the form of this petition.

I think members are no strangers to how the Chinese Communist government in Beijing views religious minorities, whether it be the Uyghur population or Falun Gong practitioners. The petitioners are most concerned about a horrible practice. In this case, it is called forced organ harvesting.

Essentially, the petitioners would like to see a resolution passed to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs; amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting, which I think most Canadians would agree is against the law; have specific sanctions in law; and publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting, which was mentioned earlier, has had over 1.5 million people from various countries sign petitions. I am glad to be representing the people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, and in this case, specifically, the petitioners who believe this is a horrible practice that should be stopped, and not just in the provision of the government in Beijing but right across the whole world.

I ask for permission to table this document in their names.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the petitioners involved in this particular petition highlight the Falun Gong situation. They highlight that this is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline, which consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance.

As members have already brought to the House's attention, Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting has received about 1.5 million petition signatures from over 50 countries. The petition was presented to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It calls for immediate action to end the unethical practice of forced organ harvesting in China; it also calls for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong.

The petitioners in this petition specifically request that the Canadian Parliament and government pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs; amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting; and publicly call for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In the future, I think my practice will be to scan the room first to see how many people want to present petitions. That way, I hope we will be able to get them all in.

I would again remind members to give brief remarks about their petition so that we can allow other colleagues to speak. I initially let the hon. member go because there were not too many people who rose when I called for petitions, but then there was lots of interest as people grabbed their petitions.

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

Ethics

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

Madam Speaker, last week I, along with other Conservatives, called on the government and the Prime Minister, to remove the Minister of Employment, the member for Edmonton Centre, from the Liberal cabinet, and that actually happened. On Wednesday, this Liberal minister left cabinet, and he did so under a major cloud of concern about various corrupt activities. Most acutely, it was revelations that his company engaged in indigenous identity fraud.

The company made the claim that it was indigenous-owned when it was not. It made that claim, because the minister, and the Liberal Party of Canada, had claimed that he, the owner of this company and a minister of the Crown, was indigenous when he was not. He has now left the cabinet. Some would say, “Is that the end of the story?”

We have been digging into this Liberal indigenous contracting scandal for months, and it is a scandal that includes this former minister, who is still a member of the Liberal caucus, but it is much wider than this. It reflects the phenomenon, and we are hearing from the Assembly of First Nations, that a majority of contracts that have been set aside that are supposed to benefit indigenous entrepreneurs and communities are actually going to shell companies. We have this endemic identity fraud and manipulation of criteria within the indigenous contracting program designed to allow privileged, elite, non-indigenous insiders to take advantage of contracts that are supposed to be going to indigenous people.

It is very interesting. When this program was created, there were many existing indigenous organizations that had been putting together lists of indigenous businesses, but instead of working with those existing organizations and building off those existing lists, this Liberal government decided it was going to create its own separate list where it was going to decide which businesses are indigenous, and that it was actually going to allow on that list companies and organizations that are actually not on anybody else's list.

There are instances of companies or joint ventures where all, if not the vast majority, of the benefit, is going to non-indigenous, elite insiders who are taking advantage of these programs. They do not show up on any of the other lists of indigenous-led organizations, but they show up on the Government of Canada's list of so-called “indigenous businesses”. That allows them to take contracts that the policy is supposed to reserve for indigenous people.

We know now that false claims about indigenous identity are not only rampant within this program, but were made by a minister of the Crown himself. Meanwhile, now that this former minister is out of cabinet, he remains a member of the Liberal caucus, but also his company continues to be eligible for government contracts. Now figure that one out.

The government should be taking fraud seriously, and that should include indigenous identity fraud, yet indigenous leaders have been telling me that they are concerned that indigenous identity fraud is not being taken seriously at all. There are all kinds of instances of people making false claims for their own advantage of indigenous identity in order to take things that have been promised to indigenous people. This is another case of people in the government, like the member for Edmonton Centre, who are still able to take advantage of government procurement. His company, Global Health Imports, is still eligible to bid on government contracts.

The question to the government should be why it has continued to allow systematic abuse in this program. Why has it continued to allow non-indigenous people to steal benefits that have been promised to indigenous people? Why in particular is the government continuing to allow companies like Global Health Imports, which we know now committed indigenous identity fraud, to access government contracts?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, determining and affirming one's indigenous identity is deeply personal and complex. It is not for the House to act as the arbiter of anyone's identity. We must acknowledge that indigenous heritage and identity are not always straightforward. Many indigenous people in Canada face challenges in tracing their roots due to historical injustices, including systemic efforts to erase indigenous cultures and identities. Labelling someone as fake without evidence is disrespectful, and it perpetrates harm and division. Instead, I would like to focus on the importance of economic reconciliation and the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses as an important tool for alleviating the injustices faced by indigenous communities over the last centuries.

I would like to remind members of the House that indigenous peoples in Canada make up approximately 5% of the overall population, yet historically, businesses owned by first nations, Inuit and Métis entrepreneurs were consistently winning a lower percentage of federal contracts. This was not due to a lack of capability or innovation, but because of systemic barriers. In fact, during the Harper government, less than 1% of procurement contracts went to indigenous businesses.

That is why, based on engagement with indigenous organizations and business leaders in 2021, Public Services and Procurement Canada, in collaboration with the Treasury Board and ISC, created more opportunities by implementing the mandatory minimum 5% indigenous procurement target. We have heard many times from indigenous partners how important PSIB is for advancing economic reconciliation and supporting indigenous businesses. Since we announced the 5% target, we have seen a surge in indigenous entrepreneurs' interest and investment in the program.

Investing in indigenous communities and building up indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs benefits all Canadians. According to a 2022 report entitled “National Indigenous Economic Strategy for Canada”, the continued exclusion of indigenous people costs the Canadian economy nearly $28 billion every year. The National Indigenous Economic Development Board found that closing the existing employment gap could help lift over 150,000 indigenous people out of poverty. There is a real cost to inaction.

On the rare occasions when there are questions about legitimacy of a business or its operations, we have processes in place. Concerns can be referred to the Public Services and Procurement Canada's office of supplier integrity and compliance. This office administers the ineligibility and suspension policy, which ensures any supplier lacking business integrity or honesty can be suspended or debarred. Additionally, we are co-developing a transformative indigenous procurement strategy with indigenous partners to strengthen the integrity and inclusiveness of the program. One key component is transferring the indigenous business directory to indigenous partners, who are best positioned to define and verify indigenous businesses.

We reject the idea that isolated incidents of bad actors should be used to undermine a program delivering tangible benefits. Economic reconciliation is not about contracts. It is about creating opportunities for indigenous communities to thrive and for all Canadians to benefit from their innovation and entrepreneurship.

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

Madam Speaker, it is clear from that answer that the Liberals have simply not listened to what indigenous leaders have told them. I encourage them to actually listen, instead of repeating talking points, written by people within government, that completely contradict what indigenous leaders are saying.

The AFN has said that a “majority” of those who benefit from these programs are “shell companies”. This is not Conservative members saying this. The AFN is saying this. I challenge the parliamentary secretary to simply answer this question: Does he agree with what the AFN has said, yes or no?

He said that identity can be complicated and difficult to trace. The member for Edmonton Centre has admitted he is not indigenous. He has openly acknowledged the company committed indigenous identity fraud by saying it was indigenous-owned. Will the member listen to what is going on, and does he agree with what the AFN has said, yes or no?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is not what the AFN has said, but I am eager—

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

Yes, it is. Read the testimony.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member is yelling at me out of turn, I am eager to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan had his one minute to reply, so now he needs to listen to the answer. Whether he likes the answer or not, he should still listen to the answer without disrupting the member who has the floor.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is concerned when his misinformation is called out. He brings up this topic and is eager to establish the integrity of this program. He understands the importance of this program. It is nice that he and his members, for once, are bringing indigenous concerns and economic reconciliation to the forefront. It is important that we ensure the integrity of this program exists, and I look forward to his collaboration in ensuring this program continues.

Housing

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am returning to the subject of a question that I first raised in this place on June 14. That was a while ago, so I am going to read what I wrote at the time. I said:

Madam Speaker, I will ask the housing minister something this time.

Carleton Place, in my riding, has been Canada's fastest-growing municipality for the past four years. When the town was given zero dollars from the housing accelerator fund, I wondered why.

Then I investigated.

I went on:

It turns out there is a pattern here. Of the $1.5 billion awarded to Ontario under the fund, 97% went to cities and towns in which Liberals hold seats.

There are some non-Liberal seats in those cities and towns, but even when this is taken into account, there is a clear pattern. Liberal-held areas received several times more funding per capita than areas held by MPs from other parties.

Why is this so?

I was not the only person who felt concerned about this. A number of my colleagues wrote about it, expressing concern that their communities were being left out of this funding. They said that if other communities were getting funding, they, too, should get funding. However, their communication was misused by the housing minister to give the false impression that there is widespread support for the housing accelerator program, as opposed to alternative ways of ensuring that housing starts are increased. On October 29, the minister stated, “A number of [MPs] are writing me personally, asking that their communities be picked for funding”. What he did not say is that he has been unfairly excluding rural communities, communities that are not held by Liberals and so on.

It was a great talking point, a great line, the misuse of these letters, so the Prime Minister got in on the act. On November 6, the Prime Minister said that funding “will provide much needed housing”, which is a very selective part of a sentence, to leave the impression that the Conservative MP the Prime Minister was quoting favours this kind of funding.

Fast-forward to November 13 of this year when I got a letter from the housing minister saying, “I am looking for your guidance on whether you would support a $3,315,593 investment from the Housing Accelerator Fund in the Municipality of Mississippi Mills.” He gives me seven days to respond to it and adds, “I am keen to advance [on this funding] in the absence of any local factors you may believe are relevant in the circumstances.... If you are interested in sharing your views, please be sure to do so before [November 20].”

The point was to pressure me into giving him a letter that would be used to give the impression that I think this is a good program, on the pain, apparently, that if I do not participate and send it in, this funding may not go through to the township of Mississippi Mills. Seven days later, I got another letter from the minister, but about Carleton Place this time. The number of dollars is different and the deadline was pushed back seven days, but it has the identical auto signature. I held both letters up to the light.

It is most inappropriate that the minister is trying to create the false impression that there is support for his terrible program, at the apparent risk of denying MPs funding. Is he not ashamed of what he is doing?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member not to point to documentation he has, as it is considered a prop.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, I think this falls under the category of “One doth protest too much.”

Six months ago, when the member brought forward the question, he was eager for housing accelerator fund money for his community, one of his communities having gotten housing accelerator fund money, the city of Kingston, which he represents. I guess he has had to go into reverse after it was released that Conservative MPs were eager to get the funding. They wanted it because their mayors came to them and said that they need the funding and that the program is a good one.

Like good MPs, they stood up for their communities. I know that the member is a good MP who stands up for his constituents, like he did in June, wondering why one of his communities did not get the funding.

Fast-forward a few months, and the member's leader's office is screaming back down at the members, “How dare you stand up for your communities?” The member had to backpedal and come here and pretend that he did not support the program from the beginning.

The member has some interesting talking points, including that only cities represented by Liberals get money from the housing accelerator fund. I think his colleagues from Kelowna would disagree, as should he, representing the city of Kingston. There is also London, Hamilton, Calgary and Edmonton, to name a few. These are cities that are represented by Conservative members and that received substantial housing accelerator fund money, along with 179 agreements to cut red tape and fast-track building permits, things that Conservatives pretend to care about.

Once again there is the pattern of Conservatives' talking a good game about how there is a housing crisis; however, when there are actual, concrete steps taken by the government to move forward with a concrete housing plan, the Conservatives are nowhere to be found.

For a brief moment, the hon. member stood up for his constituents and said that they want the money, but his leader's office disagrees. It is disappointing that the member comes, nearly six months after his question, to backtrack, to reverse course, because he is hearing from his leader's office rather than standing up for his constituents.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is one heck of a misrepresentation of what I got up and said six months ago. I said that 97% of the money was going elsewhere in Ontario, a fact which is not disproved by telling me that there is funding that has gone to Kelowna, British Columbia, or to Calgary, Alberta.

I just want to observe that if the minister's letters to me soliciting my feedback are to be taken seriously, then the implication is that the failure to respond might lead to his not giving the money. I will just ask the question: Is it the case that he is actually demanding we give support or else the money will be denied? I would be interested in knowing whether merely raising concerns about the abusive process is going to result in money being taken away from deserving communities. That is an interesting question, is it not?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me quote the mayor from one of the communities the member represents. Again, he points outside Ontario. His own community got housing accelerator fund money. He represents the city of Kingston—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question. He should now be listening to the answer.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member does not like the hypocrisy. He gets up, and his own community received housing—