Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 16th, 2022

[Senator Salma Ataullahjan, Senator]

Initially, we were seeing that transplant tourism was taking place in Asia, but recently with the migrant crisis, we're seeing that a lot of it is taking place in North Africa. We heard testimony about people who were trying to become refugees, trying to flee to Europe. They would get to some point, and they would be asked for extra money. If they weren't able to give the money, there was a certain doctor who would come and harvest their organs.

This trade has started flourishing, There is a certain country—Egypt, namely—that comes to mind, and this is an issue that I did raise with the Egyptians. There was a human rights person visiting from Egypt, and I raised this issue with her. I said that Egypt comes to mind because there is an Egyptian doctor who goes in a helicopter and harvests the organs, and these organs are sold. It's truly preying on the vulnerable, and sometimes people will sell their kidneys because they are poor and they have no other means of support, and in many cases they will not even be paid.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

In what kind of conditions are these operations taking place?

[Senator Salma Ataullahjan, Senator]

The conditions are terrible, and we've heard that a lot of these people whose organs are taken do not survive because the operations are done in backrooms and alleys and there is no aftercare. Some of them are threatened. They're told they are being followed and that if they even tell anyone that their organ was harvested, they will be killed. They are just left to their own devices. A lot of them don't even know. They are kidnapped, and their organ is harvested. Then they wake up and realize they don't have a kidney.

It's been going on, and a lot of our allies have strengthened legislation, and we haven't.

The Senate of Canada is not a foreign country; we're just a few blocks down. This is the legislation that we looked at, and the senators on every side.... We have four different groups there, and everyone agreed. This is not a partisan bill. We heard that this legislation was started by the Liberals 15 years, ago, and we did have Mr. Cotler as a witness. We looked at it and we looked at it, and the reason it didn't go before the committee.... The leadership of the Senate sat and said that this is something that we looked at and we should have passed it a long time ago. We accepted the changes that you made. We're sending you the bill that you sent to us. We did not change anything.

I don't know what else to say. As I said, it's the harvest of the poor. A lot of those people don't even get paid, and a lot of them don't survive.

For me, this is not a partisan bill. It's about doing the right thing.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Senator. I hope we'll see this committee get it through really quickly and get it to legislation really quickly. I think everybody around this room agrees with you. This needs to happen quite fast. I think there is lots of goodwill around this table to see that happen, and I hope it will.

Chair, I'll turn it back to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Zuberi. You have six minutes, Mr. Zuberi.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here, from both the Senate and the House of Commons.

To underscore that this is a non-partisan bill, I'd like to also highlight that I was happy to second this when it was introduced in the House. To underscore that this is a non-partisan issue, the issue of human rights is always non-partisan.

I'm happy that we are actually able to thoroughly discuss and debate this important piece of legislation, which the government does support. I would say that any fair-minded person should support it. The job of this committee, and committees in general, is to study the legislation at hand and then to suggest improvements, if there are any to be had. That is the exact normal and appropriate process of each and every committee.

I have happily worked with Mr. Genuis on the issue of the Uighur. We both co-chair a friendship group on the Uighur. We have learned about organ harvesting in relation to this specific, deep and serious human rights issue. We know that they are facing very serious human rights challenges, which may rise to crimes against humanity, according to the past UN high commissioner for human rights. Many countries, including our Parliament here, have said that it amounts to genocide.

We know that David Kilgour and David Matas, as experts in this space, have also done extensive research work on the organ harvesting of Falun Gong or Falun Dafa practitioners. That is well documented.

I know that this is an issue that migrates. As you've said, it has migrated from one region of the world to other regions of the world.

To Mr. Genuis, first, why are we creating a second point of inadmissibility for a criminal act when this is already in IRPA? Why are we creating two elements of inadmissibility when this is already in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act? Why are we duplicating it?

Don't you think that this can lead to wiggle room and ambiguity for defence lawyers, for example, to argue a way out of inadmissibility to Canada?

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

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi. That's a good question. It's question that was raised previously when this bill was studied. Let me say two points on that.

The substantive distinction between those provisions is that inadmissibility on the basis of criminality could not apply in a case if being involved in organ harvesting or trafficking was not actually deemed a criminal offence in the country where it was taking place. The sad reality is that in the People's Republic of China, there is forced organ harvesting happening that is coordinated by the state. It would not be a violation of the law in China for an official to be involved in forced organ harvesting or trafficking.

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

Thank you. I'll take back my time. Thank you for that.

I'll ask that same question to other witnesses later on as they sit in the exact chair where you're sitting.

Senator Ataullahjan, I really appreciate your coming here and being patient with everything you've just seen from your own colleagues in your own party, to be honest. They tried to stifle this exact conversation and debate that we're having right now. I find it shocking and problematic.

That said, I'd like to ask you a question. This is an important piece of legislation. It sends a very important signal. In terms of the threshold when it comes to prosecution and gathering of evidence, if these crimes are happening outside of Canada, how will we be able to gather the evidence in order to prosecute at the threshold of criminal law, which is beyond a reasonable doubt?

Can you explain that, please?

[Senator Salma Ataullahjan, Senator]

What we put into this was that we wanted the doctors to report. If somebody's shot and they go to a doctor, then the doctor has to report that they had a patient come in who had a gunshot wound. We had put that in, but it was taken out by this committee, if I'm correct.

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

That was for Senator Ataullahjan, but I'll hear you, Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you for your generosity in allowing me back in.

I had more to say on the previous response, but be that as it may, it was a government amendment to remove the mandatory reporting provisions. It was members of the government who said they didn't want those provisions in.

In an ideal world—

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

To take back my time, I'm speaking specifically about the evidence gathering to prosecute. We're dealing with potential crimes outside of Canada. We need to have the evidence to prosecute people to the criminal standard.

How do we do that?

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

I'll—

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

I'd like to hear from Senator Ataullahjan, please.

[Senator Salma Ataullahjan, Senator]

As I said, we put the onus on the medical doctors. If you have a patient who's on a transplant list and all of a sudden the patient is not on the transplant list because he's taken his name off, something has happened. If you have someone who comes in who is having health issues and you see the patient has had a transplant, the authorities should be told.

That clause was taken out, because it was felt it put too much responsibility on the doctors.

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

Thank you. My time is up. I'm sure we'll dive into this more with other witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

We next go to Mr. Bergeron. You have six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was wondering if my turn would come at some point today.

I am very happy to be part of this exchange.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today to discuss this bill.

I would like, first of all, to discuss the procedural aspect that Mr. Genuis mentioned. I must say that I am sensitive to the point he made that it was already 15 years ago that this Parliament, and not just this legislature, was considering a law to prohibit organ trafficking.

In light of what we have seen in relation to what is happening in Xinjiang, it is clear that we cannot stand by and do nothing.

On the other hand, I must say that I feel a certain discomfort at the idea of assuming that, in this Parliament, we are at exactly the same point as we were in the previous Parliament and that, consequently, we must eliminate the clause-by-clause study of Bill S‑223, on the pretext that the exercise has already been carried out in a previous Parliament. I confess to some discomfort with this idea, especially as it is not entirely accurate to say that the bill is 100% identical to the previous one and that there is no difference between the two.

I'll give you an example, and it was our analysts who submitted it. The summary of Bill S‑204 stated that the proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act gave the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to remove and declare inadmissible to Canada a permanent resident or foreign national who engaged in activities related to human organ trafficking. According to the summary of the current bill, Bill S‑223, this power is now vested in the appropriate minister.

Why did we go from a power vested in the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Bill S‑204 to a power vested in the appropriate minister in Bill S‑223, if the two bills are identical?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Excuse me for the delay. It was the translation catching up.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I hope the chair will take it into consideration with my time.

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

I hope so also.

Let me answer your direct question and then, if I can, comment on your preamble as well.

My understanding of this bill is that there have been multiple versions of this bill at different points in time. There were amendments to Bill S-240 that passed this committee two Parliaments ago, and then it was sent to the Senate. My understanding is that this bill is identical to the version that passed at the House of Commons committee. There were previous versions, but it's identical to the version of the bill that passed at the House committee at that time.

I agree with you, by the way, that it would have been very reasonable for the committee to look at this bill and hear from witnesses earlier on in the process. My point was that we are way too late. The clause-by-clause study next week is three sitting days before the automatic reporting deadline, which means that the committee has not left itself time.

If we were having this conversation even two or three months ago, people could have said, “We want to hear from a few witnesses, and if we decide no amendments are needed, that's fine, but we want to hear from the witnesses.” It's just that we're in a minority Parliament. Anything can happen.

This bill has sat before the committee for almost the full 60 sitting days. Do I think it's reasonable for committees in a new Parliament to say that they want to take a fresh look at this? Absolutely. Do I think it's reasonable to wait the full 60 days without talking about the bill and then say at that point that now we need to have a extensive, detailed study? I don't really think that's reasonable.

I'm certainly not blaming you for that, but I personally have expressed the view before this committee, as members know, that we should prioritize legislation, not because it's my bill, but because legislation, as opposed to studies, is the way that committees exercise their hard power.

It is just too late. Doing clause-by-clause study next week will only have the effect of delaying the bill. If we adopt it with amendments, it will significantly delay the bill. If we adopt it without amendments, it will still delay the bill, because it will require report stage, when otherwise there would be automatic reporting.

I'm sympathetic, but we are where we are.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I understand what you are saying, Mr. Genuis, but the fact is that we have called witnesses, by mutual agreement, and it would seem to me to be quite improper to turn them away, again. We have been turning away a few witnesses lately, and it always makes me somewhat uncomfortable.

I have to say that there is no indication or suggestion that clause-by-clause would necessarily result in amendments; maybe it would, maybe it would not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Could I ask that you respond in less than 10 seconds, please? We're well over the six minutes. Thank you.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Did you interrupt me, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, you're over six minutes, and we also want to hear the answer, Mr. Bergeron.