Garnett Genuis

[Petitions, October 31st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, next, I would like to table another petition regarding the ongoing detention in a Chinese prison of Huseyin Celil. Mr. Celil is a Canadian citizen. He is a Uyghur human rights activist. He was taken from Uzbekistan and sent to China decades ago. He has four sons who live in Canada, the youngest of whom he has never had the opportunity to meet. This is a terrible, tragic situation that underlines the evil of the CCP regime and the horrors that it inflicts upon people who simply wish to speak out for justice and human rights, including Canadian citizens.

We must do more here in Canada to draw attention to the case of Mr. Celil and to push for his release. Petitioners want to see the Government of Canada take the following steps. They want to see the government demand the recognition of Mr. Celil's Canadian citizenship—

[Petitions, October 31st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, next, I am tabling a petition raising concern about proposals to further expand the already very troubling euthanasia regime in this country. The House has heard calls to expand euthanasia to include children. In particular, one Louis Roy from the Quebec college of physicians recommended expanding euthanasia to include “babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes.”

Petitioners note that this proposal for legalized killing of infants is deeply disturbing to many Canadians, that infanticide is always wrong and that we are already seeing so many abuses and targeting of vulnerable people within Canada's legalized euthanasia regime. Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow the killing of children in Canada as part of the euthanasia system.

[Petitions, October 31st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, next, I would like to table a petition in support of the private member's bill, Bill C-257. This bill proposes to add political belief or activity to the Canadian Human Rights Act as prohibited grounds for discrimination. Right now we cannot discriminate against someone on various named criteria but there is no prohibition against discriminating against someone on the basis of their political views. Political discrimination can also particularly undermine the free flow of ideas and debate within a democratic society and it is in the best interests of Canadian democracy, petitioners note, to protect public debate and the exchange of differing ideas by acting to combat political discrimination.

Petitioners therefore call on the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of all Canadians to freely and peacefully express their political opinions.

[Petitions, October 31st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member across the way would like me to keep it short. I will never be silenced when speaking on behalf of my constituents.

The first petition I would like to table is regarding the ongoing horrific persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. In particular, I want to join colleagues in drawing attention to particular cases of individual practitioners who either are Canadian or who have close connections to Canada, in particular to note the tragic, immoral imprisonment of He Lizhong, one of a number of Falun Gong practitioners who have close connections to Canada who are unjustly imprisoned as part of this persecution campaign.

I want to call for the release of He Lizhong, as well as others that colleagues have mentioned. The persecution of Falun Gong practitioners has now been going on for decades, despite the fact that Falun Gong practitioners simply wish to practise a spiritual discipline and various meditation exercises emphasizing the virtues of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. Prominent Canadians have been involved in research that has revealed forced organ harvesting as part of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. Petitioners would like to see the House and the government do more to combat forced organ harvesting and the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in general.

[Public Services and Procurement, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, some members of the House are well-read, and some have read well the sheets that have been given to them.

Here is my core question: Why McKinsey? I have detailed the history of McKinsey and its involvement in the opioid crisis. We could talk about how it helped the Saudi government identify dissidents. We could talk about its support for Chinese state-run and state-affiliated companies, including those involved in military and quasi-military activity. We could talk about contracts it had or some of the work it did in Russia. The record of McKinsey is well known, especially as it relates to its support for Purdue Pharma.

If we look back at the $200 million in contracts from the government, many of which did not meet the rules, it speaks to the fact that the government went out of its way to want to help the people at McKinsey. Why? What did it see in McKinsey? Why was it so keen to send taxpayer dollars to McKinsey?

[Public Services and Procurement, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, today, my office released a documentary about the addiction crisis. People who are interested in this issue can go to eliteaddiction.ca to find out more about that documentary. In it, we talk specifically about the role of two companies, Purdue Pharma and McKinsey. This is a follow-up to a question I asked earlier about McKinsey.

Here is the story. Purdue Pharma developed a new opioid product, which they overpromoted with false information. This basically caused the opioid crisis. They told people that there was minimal risk of addiction and that, if they had any kind of issue with physical pain, they could take this drug without worrying about addictions. That, of course, was not true. Many people became addicted. They developed an escalating tolerance and physical demand for this drug. That led them to seek higher and higher doses of it and, eventually, to go to street drugs. This is the story of the opioid addiction crisis, in which many people were prescribed dangerous opioids that were overmarketed and overpromoted by Purdue Pharma. These people thought there would not be an addiction risk associated with it. They became addicted. They eventually switched to street drugs, and their lives were destroyed as a result.

Along the way, when Purdue Pharma started to face criticism about this, it went to a company called McKinsey, a global consulting firm. McKinsey provided advice to Purdue on how to supercharge sales of their opioids in the midst of these criticisms. Effectively, it was trying to supercharge the addiction crisis, which had already destroyed many lives and many families at that point. It would go on to continue to destroy many lives, families and communities.

This is a great blight on our society that I think must rightly be laid at the feet of these companies, Purdue Pharma and McKinsey. In the United States, these companies have been compelled to pay massive amounts of compensation, which has been redirected towards treatment and recovery. However, here in Canada, rather than holding companies such as Purdue and McKinsey to account, the Liberal government has continued to pay them and to pursue policies that have provided great financial advantage for them. In the case of Purdue Pharma, it has pursued a safe supply program; this leads to Purdue Pharma being paid to produce more dangerous drugs, which are then provided to those who are struggling with addiction at taxpayer expense. In the case of McKinsey, the government has hired McKinsey directly to provide advice.

Conservatives have said that we will sue those responsible for the opioid crisis for all the damages and redirect those funds to treatment and recovery. We would make the drug pushers pay, but the Liberals continue to pay the pushers. This is why we feel it is essential to challenge the government's close relationship with and massive spending on McKinsey. It is a choice to go to a company that is one of the actors responsible for the opioid crisis and ask it for advice on a whole range of issues to do with how to run the country. Why would we be paying McKinsey to provide advice instead of holding it to account for what it has done?

I specifically want to ask the government this: What is behind this close relationship with McKinsey? Will it stop paying the pushers and instead support our policy to make the pushers pay?

[Public Services and Procurement, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up.

The Liberals have allowed fraudulent, non-indigenous insiders and shell companies to steal contracts that had been earmarked for indigenous businesses. Now that companies like the Canadian Health Care Agency and Dalian Enterprises, which got over $100 million each, have been removed from the indigenous business list, they should pay back the money that had been set aside for indigenous companies.

When will the government get our money back from bad actors who pretended to be indigenous?

[Petitions, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition that I am tabling is regarding human rights in Hong Kong and applicable immigration provisions.

The petitioners note how many democracy activists in Hong Kong have been subject to arbitrary, politicized sentences, some of them under the national security law, but there have been many cases in which offences not under the national security law have nonetheless been used to target people who are involved in legitimate democracy advocacy. This creates problems when those individuals might be applying for immigration to Canada. They might be excluded on the basis of criminality even though they have not committed any crimes; they have simply been involved in pro-democracy, pro-freedom protests.

The petitioners therefore want to see the Government of Canada recognize the politicization of the judiciary in Hong Kong and its impact on the legitimacy and validity of criminal convictions. They want to see affirmation that national security law offences will be considered irrelevant and invalid in relation to prospective immigration to Canada. They further want to see a mechanism whereby Hong Kong people with pro-democracy movement-related convictions not under the national security law could also be deemed admissible to Canada, notwithstanding the criminality provisions. They want to see Canada work with other like-minded states to have similar such provisions.

I commend all these petitions to the consideration of my colleagues.

[Petitions, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, next I am tabling a petition respecting concerns about religious freedom in India.

The petitioners draw attention to findings of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, reporting that various actors have sought to establish an explicit religious nationalism within India, contrary to India's secular and pluralistic foundations, and that this has posed a grave threat to India's religious minorities. They highlight a concerning increase in incidents targeting Christians in India. They also draw attention to threats to the Dalit community and the Muslim community specifically.

The petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that any discussions or negotiations with India involve clear human rights provisions. They want to see sanctions against individuals who are guilty of extremist violence against religious minorities, as well as incitement, and also promotion of mutually respectful and beneficial human rights dialogue in this case.

[Petitions, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, next I am tabling a petition that raises concerns about a 2021 election platform commitment from the Liberal Party to politicize charitable status.

In that election platform, the Liberals proposed to apply political criteria to the charitable status definition and to deny charitable status to organizations that disagree with the Liberal Party's position with respect to abortion.

The petitioners note that this would jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that, for reasons of conscience, take the position they do on this issue. They note as well that this would be similar to the values test previously applied by the government to worthy applicants under the Canada summer jobs program. They note that charitable status determinations should be made in a politically neutral way that reflects an evaluation of the charitable activities of the organization, not of the personal convictions or values of those who run the organization.

The petitioners therefore want to see the House protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination, and to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.