Debates of Feb. 18th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Religious Minorities in China

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Then we will go back to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will restart the quote I was reading. She said that one day,

[The guards] brought 200...[women] to the hall, and they picked out one young girl, about 20 years old, and they forced her to accept the guilt for something that she never had done. She was crying and she was saying that she was guilty even though she was not guilty. She accepted it in front of the 200 prisoners. Then the Chinese guards started raping her, one by one, in front of all these 200 prisoners. They went down the line and raped her one by one in front of all the people.

If some of these 200 prisoners showed pain on their faces or in their eyes, or hesitation or any negative emotion...they will pick these prisoners from the crowd and later they will start torturing them because they didn't change.

That is what is happening right now. Where is our feminist foreign policy? Ms. Sauytbay is just one of many who told this to the subcommittee.

Irwin Cotler later told the following to the subcommittee:

Genocide obliges us all—internationally, domestically, governments, parliaments, civil societies...to call out genocide. It's a responsibility under the genocide convention to both prevent and punish acts of genocide.

It would be first and foremost a responsibility for Parliament to define these acts targeting the Uighurs as constitutive of acts of genocide, as the witness testimony has so eloquently and compellingly conveyed before this committee...

The Prime Minister says that “genocide” is a loaded term and he is right. It is a loaded term. It is a term that should only be used to describe instances where genocide is clearly taking place, such as this one. The Prime Minister says he wants more evidence and he wants to send a fact-finding mission to China. This is disgraceful obfuscation. The facts have already been found. The evidence has been exposed and the experts agree. The Prime Minister knows that the Chinese regime will never allow unfettered access to do the required investigation.

If I could see through my window that my neighbour was being violently raped and killed by an intruder, would it really be okay for me to knock at the door and wait to be invited in to investigate?

The Prime Minister's reluctance to call out these crimes is all the more striking given the fact that he has previously accused Canada of committing a 21st century genocide. He said in 2019 that his government accepts that murders of indigenous women and girls in recent decades amount to genocide. Experts at the time, including Irwin Cotler, criticized this use of the term “genocide” saying, “I think we have to guard against using that term in too many ways because then it will cease to have the singular importance and horror that it warrants.”

Is it not then ironic that the Prime Minister of Canada is prepared to accuse his own country of genocide, even when some experts say otherwise, but unprepared to accuse the Government of China of genocide, even when the experts say otherwise? Far from having some natural filial attachment to his own country, the Prime Minister is willing to accuse his own country while unwilling to recognize a genocide in China when it is clearly taking place.

There can be no doubt that the Prime Minister's denial of the Uighur genocide has nothing to do with the evidence. I will not pretend to know his true motivations, but I hope that members of his caucus will be prepared to press him on the point, if not in public, then certainly in private.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know from the member's other speeches in this House that he is fully aware of this issue and is very well connected with it. He follows it closely. He advocates very strongly, and I appreciate that, but I want to pick up on one of the last sentences in his speech. In it, he said that he does not attempt to understand why the Prime Minister would be against it. However, he said so much about that previous to making that comment. The member must, for some reason, assume something, and I am curious to know what it is.

Is it the fact that a situation like this is very complex, as the minister said earlier? What leads someone in the Prime Minister's position to make the decision that he made? Could the member try to comment on that, as he did on everything else leading up to it?

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

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, it is a bit curious for a member of the Liberal caucus to ask me, a member of the Conservative caucus, to speculate about his own leader's motivations for failing to recognize this genocide. The member might be better disposed to do that.

The evidence is very clear, as has been stated. The Prime Minister's reluctance to act, to call it a genocide in this case, in response to the experts, is very troubling, very concerning.

If I were to speculate, I might read from a tweet from a gentleman named Steve Ricketts, who veers a little more to the left than I do. He is active on Twitter in my riding. He said:

While I detest what is happening to the Uyghurs in China, I'm hesitant for Canada to declare it a genocide, as that requires taking action.

If I were to speculate about the Prime Minister's motivations, I wonder if Mr. Ricketts said what the Prime Minister is thinking: that he is reluctant to call it a genocide because recognizing a genocide necessitates, under international law, a proportionate response.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the long-standing commitment of the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to the plight of the Uighurs. The speech he just delivered conveys the passion that drives him, but it also shows how urgent the situation is, considering what is happening in Xinjiang.

Canada has not always been on the right side of history. Let us not forget that Mackenzie King refused entry to a ship full of Jewish refugees in 1938. He said at the time:

“None is too many.”

However, our country has also been on the right side of history. One has only to think of Mr. Mulroney, who showed real leadership fighting apartheid in South Africa.

On what side of history does my colleague think this Prime Minister will be?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to that acknowledgement, I do want to acknowledge the excellent work done by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean on these issues as well. It has been a pleasure to work with him and members from all parties on these important issues.

The member will appreciate the reflection that although many of us came into those subcommittee hearings with our party hats on, they were long gone as we started to hear this compelling evidence. That is how we came to the unanimous conclusion that this is indeed a genocide.

The member asks an important question. As I said in my speech, we will all have to give account, to future generations at least, of the choices we made as members of Parliament. Our careers are fleeting and the memory of history is long. This is one of those profound historic moments when not just the Prime Minister but every single member of this House who has the power to vote on this motion will be called on to give an account of what side they were on. Were they on the side of justice, on the side of victims, or did they use “it is complicated” as an excuse?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about my colleague's brush-off and minimization of the current crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls.

My question, however, is this: Does the member feel that the UN genocide convention also applies in real time in Canada to the forced sterilization of women that is occurring right now, as stated in article II(d), “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”, and also to the events that occurred in residential schools, as stated in article II(e), “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”?

Is the member committed to applying definitions of genocide to our own backyard when acts of genocide are occurring?

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

Mr. Speaker, just to be very clear, my comments were in no way a brush-off. I simply pointed out the reality, which is that the Prime Minister has described events in Canada as constituting genocide but refuses to say that events taking place now in China are genocide. That is an observation that the Prime Minister has to be accountable for.

As for the appropriateness of applying the term “genocide” to other policies in Canadian history, I am interested in hearing from experts and hearing the evidence on that. The debate we are having today, and certainly the debate I am prepared for, is that we have heard overwhelmingly from expert legal opinions that clearly a genocide is ongoing in China and necessitates a response.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, famed Holocaust survivor and scholar Elie Wiesel said:

We must [always] take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

I take these words to heart. As someone who has studied the Holocaust throughout my life, I understand the importance of the reality of man's inhumanity to man. It can sometimes be difficult here in Canada to understand the lengths to which human beings can go to advance their own self-interest.

We have our own issues of social justice in Canada, to be sure, but the realities of the Holocaust and the shock of the Holocaust, outside the lived experience, is for some just too much to bear. However, we must bear it. When we say “we must never forget” and make our solemn promise of “never again”, it means not only for the purposes of honouring those who were murdered by the Nazis but also to make sure this never happens again to anyone or any group.

This is one of those moments in history when we have not only an opportunity but an obligation to speak out and take action. People are dying and being persecuted, for no other reason than their faith, by an authoritarian regime that cares not. To not speak up leaves us in a moral vacuum, and history will not judge us well if we fail to act.

Let us look at the facts of what is actually taking place in China right now as we debate this motion.

There are about 12 million Uighurs, mostly Muslim, living in northwestern China in the region of Xinjiang. The Chinese government has reportedly arbitrarily detained more than a million Uighurs in detention camps. The existence of these camps has been confirmed by government documents, witness testimonies and satellite imagery. The majority of people in these camps have never been charged with crimes, have no due process and have no legal avenues to challenge their detentions. Often, their only crime in the eyes of the Communist Chinese regime is being Muslim.

It is only their closely held faith that may be sealing their fates. I say “may”, because we here in the House have a role to play.

The Chinese government has implemented measures against Uighurs, such as forcibly transferring children away from families, restricting the use of their national language, banning cultural activities, destroying schools and religious institutions and many other things we have heard about here today.

Since 2016, thousands of mosques, graveyards, and other religious sites have been desecrated and destroyed. The Uighur language has been banned in Xinjiang in schools. Practising Islam has been discouraged as a sign of extremism. Between 2017 and 2019, it is estimated that more than 80,000 Uighurs were transferred out of the far eastern Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region and forced to work in factories across China, some directly from detention camps. Researchers and rights groups say the labour transfer programs are part of the Chinese government's system of control, indoctrination and forced assimilation.

Both China and Canada have ratified the genocide convention, which defines the crime of genocide, establishes obligations of prevention and punishment, and recognizes the possibility of establishing state responsibility for a campaign of genocide. According to the genocide convention, genocide is a crime that can take place in times of war as well as in times of peace. The definition of genocide set out in the convention has been widely adopted at both national and international levels, including in the 1998 Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.

The crime of genocide is defined by the genocide convention with respect to three elements.

The first is that the victims form part of a protected group, i.e., a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and in this case we have the Uighur Muslims as this group.

The second is that the perpetrators committed one or more enumerated acts against members of the group. These acts are the killing of members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. We have seen multiple instances of these acts in the case of Uighur Muslims in China.

Third, the perpetrators acted with the intent to destroy the protected group in whole or in part.

With respect to the third element of genocide, the intent in this case by the Chinese Communist regime could not be more clear: It wants to destroy the culture, faith and existence of the Uighur Muslims. Canada's Subcommittee on International Human Rights has already studied the facts and has concluded that the actions of the Chinese Communist Party constitute genocide. We know that the Uighurs are being systematically detained in camps, abused, sterilized and forced to become labourers on a mass scale.

The time has passed for debating semantics. The government must join our U.S. allies and the Biden administration in officially recognizing the Uighur genocide. It must encourage the recognition of a genocide by our allies around the world. It must work with these allies, including the U.S., to take coordinated action in response to this genocide, and it must impost Magnitsky sanctions against those responsible for these heinous crimes being committed against the Uighurs.

The Prime Minister can dodge questions about this as much as he wants, and that might work in the short term, but I implore him and Canada's government to do the right thing. History never fails to be the final arbiter of the performance of world leaders on the foremost human rights issues of the era in which they served. When it comes to the action or lack thereof taken by the Prime Minister, how does he want to be remembered?

In 1957, former prime minister Lester Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize for his role is resolving Suez crisis through the United Nations. The selection committee argued that Pearson had saved the world, and he is considered one of the fathers of the modern concept of peacekeeping.

In 1988, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney stood virtually alone in the world against the tyranny of apartheid in South Africa and is revered to this day in South Africa.

In 1939, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and his government said, “None is too many” when it came to allowing the German transatlantic liner MS St. Louis to bring its passengers fleeing Europe onto Canadian soil, callously turning away that ship and sending over 900 Jewish souls back to the Nazis to be exterminated.

I ask the Prime Minister this: Does he want to be remembered like Pearson and Mulroney, as a champion, or like Mackenzie King, leaving himself to have to apologize for his lack of action when it comes to one of the true human rights abuses of our generation?

Any prime minister of this great country must have the courage and foresight to be among the first to condemn evil when they see it and have the determination to take steps that stop it from continuing. My colleague, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, eloquently said in the House that in Canada, our foreign policy begins with who we are. I therefore ask members this: Who are we?

I alluded to this before, but this is truly our time, as legislators and political leaders in a country that stands for freedom and human rights, to take action, to speak out and to stand up for what is right. Let us call out the Chinese Communist regime's heinous acts for what they truly are: a genocide.

I urge each and every member to do the right thing and support this motion. Let us vote yes for freedom, vote yes for human rights and vote yes for never again.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. It was very eloquent. Like him, I have deep concerns about the genocide that is happening against the Uighur people, and I appreciate his comments.

One thing we have an obligation to do as a country and as parliamentarians is to recognize and acknowledge genocide wherever it occurs, whenever it occurs. However, we are seeing a reluctance by the Prime Minister to acknowledge the genocide that is happening against the Uighur people, and the member spoke to some degree about what he would like to see the government do in response to that genocide.

In Canada, the government has acknowledged that we have a genocide against indigenous peoples. Could the member also talk about the implications of that genocide and what he would like to see the government do with regard to it?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a first step, I think the government needs to get its act together on this. The Prime Minister's hand-picked ambassador to the United Nations is saying that what is going on with the Uighurs fits the definition of “genocide” and the hon. chair of the finance committee has indicated concerns about our relationship with China. However, the Prime Minister says “genocide” is a loaded term. It is a loaded term for good reason.

It is really time for the Prime Minister to stand up. What we need to do is work to create an international coalition of like-minded countries. They should come together and come up with a strategy to deal with genocide, not unlike what happened during the Holocaust. Magnitsky sanctions could be a very effective tool, and the Olympics, of course.

On social justice issues around indigenous Canadians, I am very sympathetic to arguments on that. I did not come prepared to debate that issue today, but I am certainly open-minded and would love to have a debate about it and hear arguments around those issues—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will go on to the next question.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced like-minded countries. There has been a great deal of discussions and dialogue among international partners. Issues have been raised with regard to the Five Eyes and Canada is one of four that is still in the same position today. Conservative members and others have made reference to the fact that we have this outstanding foreign affairs subcommittee that is doing fantastic work.

My question to the member is the same question I put to the New Democratic member, who, with hindsight, said maybe we should have done it that way. Maybe we should be saying that this is a very important question that all members are asked to vote on. Why would we not allow the foreign affairs subcommittee to review having that vote? Would the member not think this would better inform all members of the House about the fine work it has done to date? Maybe we could bring that work to a conclusion by having a recommendation like this come before the House.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I find the question very concerning because it tells me that the member is blind to the facts that are before him. We do not need the foreign affairs subcommittee to tell us what we already know. We need to be working with our international allies, but we should be first out of the gate, not in the middle of the pack and not last.

We should do, for example, what Brian Mulroney did. He stood virtually alone, as I said in my speech, on the world stage to seek the freedom of Nelson Mandela and end apartheid in South Africa. That is the leadership this country needs, not months from now after the foreign affairs committee has studied it, but today, this afternoon. I urge the member to vote for this motion when it comes up for a vote.

Criminal Code

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government asked for unanimous consent to withdraw Bill C-13, which is still on the Order Paper, at second reading.

This request was made in response to Bill C-218 being passed at second reading. Since both bills propose similar amendments to the Criminal Code, it makes sense to withdraw one bill and move forward with the other.

Unanimous consent was denied, which means that not all members agreed.

A point of order was raised today to ask the Speaker to rule on the matter of the rule of anticipation, which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. While Bosc and Gagnon supports this argument, it also claims, “past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.”

The sponsor of Bill C-218 has indicated to the Speaker and to me that he wants to weigh in on this important point of order since it involves his bill. He plans to do so as soon as the House resumes tomorrow.

Bill C-13 cannot be called for debate today since, as we know, opposition motions on allotted days take precedence over all other business. In addition, except for today, the government has the prerogative to schedule this bill any day it wants, and last I looked, it has other bills to debate, including the bill to implement the economic statement, normally a priority bill for a government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to respect the member's right to defend his bill and make his own representations regarding the rule of anticipation before you make your ruling on this matter.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the House leader of the official opposition for his additional comments on this matter. His comments will certainly be taken into consideration.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Opposition Motion—Religious Minorities in China

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley not allowed questions and comments?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for raising the point. We were down to the last 20 seconds of his time, which is not sufficient time to start another round with both a question and a response, as sometimes happens. Sometimes members go over the five minutes by a bit and sometimes they are a little short. On any day, we hope it will average out to about the same.

I appreciate the hon. member's point and I am sure the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley also appreciates her additional thoughts in that regard.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would gladly take the 20 seconds.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

No, it is a discretion the Chair will exercise from time to time in the course of managing the timetable that is available to all members.

We will proceed with the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard. I cannot wait to hear his speech, even though I expect we have somewhat different views. I look forward to potentially asking him a question afterwards.

The matter before us today, recognition of the Uighur genocide in China, has come up in a number of committees, at times indirectly. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which is currently studying the situation in Hong Kong. I have often seen the similarities when questioning our witnesses about whether Canada should speak with a strong and consistent voice to help all groups that are currently experiencing repression in China. They were unanimous. The witnesses all told us that focusing solely on immigration measures, which is currently the suggested approach for Hong Kong, is ineffective if not backed by assertive diplomatic action. Yesterday, a witness even told us that if we tackle the underlying causes that lead to people becoming refugees, immigration measures would be unnecessary. That is what should be done. Everyone said Canada should take a stand against this international bully, against China, in support of human rights.

As for the technicality of recognizing genocide, since that is what I want to focus on, the definition comes to us from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which Canada ratified in 1952. As many of my colleagues have done before me, I think it is important to look at the criteria set out in article II of the convention. The first point refers to the act of killing members of the group. A number of media sources have reported on the disappearance of several million Uighurs without any—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I apologize but I have to ask the member to check whether her microphone is connected properly. It seems that the sound quality is not very good.

Perhaps the member could try again.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Okay, Mr. Speaker.

Can the interpreters hear me a little better now? I think I selected the right microphone on my device. Is the sound okay now?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

No, it seems the same. Perhaps the hon. member could double-check the channel selected on her monitor.