Garnett Genuis

[Justice, May 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to defend my private member's bill, Bill C-350, a bill which would combat forced organ harvesting.

As many members know, there are certain countries where organs are taken from people without their consent. Sometimes these organs are cut out of a person while he or she is still living and without anaesthetics, screaming in pain as the person's body is cut apart. In many cases, organ harvesting is a form of further abuse, targeting members of persecuted religious minorities.

After more than 10 years of research, two Canadian lawyers, David Matas and David Kilgour, along with investigative journalist Ethan Gutmann, released a report which estimated that between 60,000 and 100,000 organs are being transplanted in Chinese hospitals every year, with the source for most of those organs being prisoners of conscience, primarily Falun Gong practitioners. This figure is much larger than the 10,000 the Chinese government has produced in its attempt, unfortunately, to cover up this gross violation of fundamental human rights.

Transplantation in China is a booming industry. The Chinese government has invested huge amounts of money into new buildings, new staff, and research and training in transplants. Given this massive capital establishment coupled with the high volume of transplants, the transplantation industry in China is built on not just the ready supply of available organs in the present, but also on an expectation of an indefinite supply of organs for the future. As such, we should greet claims by the regime that this practice has ended with severe skepticism.

In Canada right now, some members might be surprised to know that there is no law preventing Canadian citizens from going abroad, acquiring an organ which they know or which they should know has been taken without consent, and then coming back. This is a gaping hole, a case where the law has not kept up with emerging realities. Right now, there is no law preventing Canadians from participating in or benefiting from this immoral use of human organs from involuntary organ harvesting.

I believe, as I have said many times, that Canada needs to be vocal in standing up for international human rights, and in particular for the rights of persecuted minorities. Even above that, Canada needs legislation which would define in Canadian law our opposition to involuntary organ harvesting in cases where it comes back to our shores. This really is a no-brainer and it should be a non-partisan issue.

In previous Parliaments a number of MPs have introduced bills aimed at countering forced organ harvesting, but unfortunately, they have not made it through the legislative process.

Bill C-350, which I have proposed, is the same bill as Bill C-561 put forward by former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler. David Kilgour, who I mentioned earlier, is also a former Liberal and Progressive Conservative MP. Credit is also due to the current member for Etobicoke Centre, who I know cares very much about this issue, who has seconded my bill, and who put forward a similar bill in a previous Parliament. It has been a pleasure working with him.

This legislation has always been a good idea, but it is particularly needed right now. Given escalating human rights problems around the world, and given the emphasis this government is putting on Canada's relationship with China, there is a real urgency to move forward with this kind of basic human rights legislation.

Some people have asked me how often it actually happens that Canadians go oversees to get organs. While it is difficult to know the exact numbers, the report done by Kilgour and Matas found that of three Canadian hospital studies, they knew of 100 Canadians who had gone to China for organ transplants in the last three years. Those are some relatively significant numbers, which certainly have had a major impact on those political prisoners of conscience who are affected by this.

Further, I will mention that Israel, Spain, and Taiwan have all taken similar steps as are proposed by this bill. If Taiwan, which is very close to and much more economically linked with China, can take this step, then certainly we can as well.

I did not write this bill. I recognize the great work done on this issue by many people--Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats--but now it is time for us to take the football to the end zone. Notwithstanding any of the potential sensitivities, I believe that this needs to be done in this Parliament. It is an issue of fundamental human rights, so let us move this forward.

[Canada Labour Code, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, just to follow-up on the issue of time allocation, my colleague's point was not to say that time allocation is bad in all cases, but that if the government had dealt with the bills right here, it would not have to play ping-pong with the Senate. If it did not use time allocation, and instead had a thorough debate with amendments here, then it actually might be able to get its legislative agenda through faster, and members of Parliament could be more involved in debate.

What does the member think of that reality?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the member's comment that the government believes in choice between a card check system and a secret ballot.

That sounds good, but on the other hand, if I am a member of a workplace that is certified through a card check system, I actually do not ever get a choice. I just wake up one morning, go to work, and am told, “Oh, well, the card check process happened. You are part of a union now.” I did not get to vote. I did not get to talk to my colleagues, and nobody ever explained the process. I came into work one day, and there was a union. That is not choice, I would submit.

I would say that a good legislative framework on unionization would ensure that choice is invested in every single member of that workplace such that members have an opportunity to deliberate and then decide in an environment where they are protected from intimidation, either by management or other workers. A secret ballot is what we have in this country for other elections, because it reflects that principle.

Why does that member think, and why does the government think, that in the sort of misguided name of choice, some workers should actually not even be consulted until unionization is really a fait accompli?

[Sri Lanka, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this week we mark eight years since the end of Sri Lanka's civil war.

During that war, Canada rightly listed the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist organization, but unfortunately the fight against terrorism was and continues to be used by Sri Lanka's government as a basis on which to violate the fundamental human rights of the Tamil community. Estimates are that over 40,000 Tamil civilians were killed during the final phase of this civil war, as the government shelled civilians, no-fire zones, and hospitals. Subsequently, IDPs faced torture, and the use of torture in Sri Lanka remains a concern.

Progress in the search for justice and reconciliation is between slow and non-existent. Independent judicial mechanisms to investigate crimes committed by both sides were promised but never materialized.

I was proud of the leadership showed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he announced that Canada would boycott the 2013 Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka over human rights abuses. The Liberal government must maintain and increase that pressure.

This week, we mourn those who lost their lives and renew our calls for justice and accountability.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask specifically about this issue of people who go into supervised injection sites being offered an alternative in the context of going in. I understand this is one of the Senate amendments that the government is rejecting. It is also a part of previous legislation.

Those who defend supervised injection sites generally do so on the basis that there is still hope and still an effort to put people on a path to recovery, and yet the government seems allergic to having specific language in the legislation that would ensure that people were at least offered a step on that path to recovery. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can explain this allergy. Why, when we have these supervised injection sites, should we not at a minimum insist that people be offered some kind of an alternative when they are going in?

[Foreign Affairs, May 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, honorary Canadian citizenship should mean something, but Aung San Suu Kyi is refusing to allow UN investigators into Rakhine to study the ongoing ethnic cleansing. Canadians feel betrayed by this refusal.

This question needs an answer. Given the particular Canadian connection, will the Prime Minister commit to personally contacting Aung San Suu Kyi and pushing her to step up, allow access to Rakhine, and stop the ongoing slaughter of Muslim Rohingya?

[Human Rights, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this push for a proper inquiry that would involve the Burmese government allowing access to Rakhine is extremely important. Of course, I have been critical of the government on some of these issues in the past, but I recognize that Minister Dion did tweet calling for that access. That was important, but now we need to continue the pressure.

I do not expect that the parliamentary secretary will have an immediate answer to this proposal, but I want to propose that the Prime Minister directly contact Aung San Suu Kyi. We know that the Prime Minister has an international profile when it comes to issues of inclusion. We recognize that, and this would be an opportunity for him to contact Aung San Suu Kyi directly and strongly express Canadians' concerns on these issues and push for that necessary access. That advocacy is so important.

I strongly encourage the Government of Canada to look for further opportunities to increase that pressure, because it clearly has not been enough up until now. There needs to be more pressure from the international community.

[Human Rights, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my friend the parliamentary secretary here, ready to answer the question. I look forward to continuing to work with the government on this issue, which is so important and should transcend party lines.

I have spoken out regularly in the House and elsewhere about the human rights violations confronting the Muslim Rohingya people in Burma. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights released a report into the situation three months ago. I would like to read an excerpt from the press release. It states:

Mass gang-rape, killings – including of babies and young children, brutal beatings, disappearances and other serious human rights violations by Myanmar’s security forces in a sealed-off area north of Maungdaw in northern Rakhine State have been detailed in a new UN report issued Friday based on interviews with victims across the border in Bangladesh. Of the 204 people individually interviewed by a team of UN human rights investigators, the vast majority reported witnessing killings, and almost half reported having a family member who was killed as well as family members who were missing. Of the 101 women interviewed, more than half reported having suffered rape or other forms of sexual violence. Especially revolting were the accounts of children – including an eight-month old, a five-year-old and a six-year-old – who were slaughtered with knives. One mother recounted how her five-year-old daughter was trying to protect her from rape when a man “took out a long knife and killed her by slitting her throat.” In another case, an eight-month-old baby was reportedly killed while his mother was gang-raped by five security officers.

Two days ago, Aung San Suu Kyi said that she would not allow a UN fact finding mission on the ground in Rakhine State, saying, “we do not think that the resolution is in keeping with what is actually happening on the ground.” To claim that these atrocities are not happening, while denying anyone the capacity to investigate, is despicable and is complicity.

At present, Aung San Suu Kyi is choosing to be complicit in these abuses. She should either allow international access to Rakhine State now or she should give back her Nobel Peace Prize.

In Canada, we need to up the diplomatic pressure on the Burmese government and on Aung San Suu Kyi in particular. She is, after all, an honorary Canadian citizen, honoured in the past for human rights activity, yet we have this deplorable situation, with her in particular saying that they will not allow the investigation to proceed in Rakhine.

Having reflected on these atrocities, there can be nothing more important than saving these women, children, and men who are facing horrific abuses in Rakhine.

I want to ask the government specific questions. I know we have had statements in the House, and I appreciate those statements. However, will this be raised directly with Aung San Suu Kyi and the government of Burma? Will the government direct our embassy to speak out and do clear, public advocacy on the issues facing Rohingya, Kachin, and other minorities in Burma?

I believe we need a stronger voice from the Canadian embassy, speaking clearly and publicly on behalf of our values.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, reflecting the position of cabinet and those working hard to join it.

The member gave a reasonably good speech but better is always possible. It would have been good to hear about why the government supported the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The government can invest in infrastructure without giving the Chinese government complete control over where those dollars go. When it comes to accountability, when it comes to human rights, the way in which a bank based out of Beijing operates will be different. The previous American administration chose not to participate in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank precisely because of these concerns.

Why can the Liberal government not make infrastructure investments that do not involve the Chinese government calling the shots?

[Points of Order, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment that it is frustrating when a member is in the middle of giving a speech on a different topic and then a member raises a comment about a previous point of order, as important as that issue may be. There are other times, right after question period, when the member could raise it, but it is profoundly disrespectful, speaking of respect, to the member who is mid-sentence on a completely different topic for that member to stand up because he just has to comment on something that was addressed previously during the day.