Scott Reid

[Petitions, November 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, my petition is also on the subject of Falun Gong or Falun Dafa, a peaceful practice that emphasizes truth, compassion and forbearance and that is centred on Chinese traditional practices. Its practitioners have been persecuted for, frankly, no good reason by the Chinese government since 1999.

The petitioners request that Canada take a strong stance against the persecution, and in particular against the practice of organ harvesting. Falun Gong practitioners in many cases, and this is extremely well documented, have been used for involuntary organ harvesting. We can imagine what this results in for the people whose organs are being harvested; it is effectively a form of permitted murder. The issue was well investigated by David Kilgour and David Matas, who presented impressive testimony at the international human rights subcommittee, of which I was chair.

The petitioners ask that we take a strong stand on the issue.

[Housing, November 25th, 2024]

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?

[Housing, November 25th, 2024]

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?

[Privilege, November 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in his earlier comments, the member for Timmins—James Bay used the term “total falsehood”, which I think may be unparliamentary. I am not certain of that, but if it is, it would be a good idea for him to withdraw it.

[Committees of the House, November 21st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member referred to an hon. colleague by their personal name as opposed to the name of their riding, which we do not do here.

[Correctional Service of Canada, November 19th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about the success of CORCAN programs. Well, then, if she thinks they are so great, she should listen to what CORCAN said in the briefing note that the government kept hidden for five years:

Based on the empirical evidence accumulated by CSC, Public Safety, and international research, prison industrial farming, even if accommodated to include elements of “pet therapy”, are unlikely to lower criminality and are also likely to have negative economic bottom lines. The resources allocated to these types of programs would be better directed towards correctional programs, education programs and social programs that have proven positive returns on public safety and government investments.

That is the advice, which is to focus on re-education and employment that produces results. The prison farm program and the giant cattle barn it has built is not the way to do that.

[Correctional Service of Canada, November 19th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, on November 8, I raised a question regarding newly unredacted briefing notes. To be fair, they are still only partially unredacted. There is plenty still hidden, but they are less redacted than previously. They are notes provided by Correctional Service Canada officials to the minister from 2015 to 2019. They were originally sought in 2019.

The government managed to delay their release by fighting the efforts to have them made public by a very persistent journalist, but after five years, we have the notes. They indicate, which is the point I made on November 8, that Correctional Service Canada recommended against reopening the Joyceville and Collins Bay prison farms, which had been shut in 2010 because the labour done by inmates on the farms would not reduce recidivism but would waste resources, meaning they would cost a great deal of money, and would lead to worse public safety outcomes than a number of alternatives, which were available and recommended by Correctional Service Canada.

I asked that question, and the response of the parliamentary secretary was to say the community supports prison farms. In all fairness, I cannot figure out who he was talking about when he says the community supports the continuation of the prison farms. There is a separate issue with regard to the potential opening of the abattoir that the Liberals shut down about a year or year and a half ago that I think does have community support. There are some practical issues making it difficult for that to go forward. The facility is probably not capable of being rehabilitated, but there is support for that because beef farmers have a serious problem finding an outlet for their beef. Slaughter facilities are in very limited supply in eastern Ontario. That is not the prison farm we are talking about.

The prison farm is a mixed goat and cow dairy operation involving a multi-million dollar, largely robotic cow milking system for which the government has not acquired milk quota yet, which will cost further millions of dollars. It will be manned and observed by people from McGill University. None of this has anything to do with community support, so I wanted to get that on the record.

The assertion here is that everything the government does, so it claims, is evidence-based and science-based, that it looks to the experts and takes their word on things, but the fact is there is a very different story. The documents reveal that CSC indicated in its briefing notes, “Adapting an employment program that targets the care of farm animals such as cows, would be highly unlikely to produce significant recidivism reduction, even if the risk-need-responsivity principles of effective corrections can be applied to this type of intervention.” There is a lot of emphasis on people getting more humane skills. It specifically mentions that pet therapies are unlikely to produce results and have never been done with farm animals before.

Based on that, I ask why the government is not listening to the advice that has been given over and over again by Correctional Service Canada not to reopen the prison farms.

[Foreign Affairs, November 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, it was reported that David Lavery from Perth, Ontario, had been detained by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr. Lavery is the hero known as “Canadian Dave” who rescued hundreds during the fall of Kabul. After all other Canadian officials had already been evacuated, Canadian Dave and his team stayed on in Kabul to ensure the safe passage of Canadians and others on the final flights out of the country. Now he is in Taliban custody, and we worry for his well-being.

What steps is the government taking to bring Dave Lavery home?

[Privilege, November 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the allegation by the member, what he characterizes as borderline contempt of Parliament, is itself unparliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw it. It is the second time he has done this. Doing it twice when it is wrong does not make it right.

[Correctional Service of Canada, November 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is coming from the documents that were withheld from all of us for six years.

On October 15, Corrections Canada closed the bidding in what it characterized as an “invitation to submit an expression of interest...to operate a commercial activity from a building(s) located at Joyceville Institution...and provide offender employment and vocational training.” I think this refers to the on-site slaughter facility, but the wording of the invitation is so vague that neither the building nor the nature of the employment is specified. Presumably, this was done to subvert the tender process so only the preferred candidate could submit a bid and therefore get the contract.

Will the minister advise the House as to the outcome of the bidding process and as to whether a contract has been awarded?