Debates of Feb. 18th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Religious Minorities in China

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree that this is an opportunity for Canada to take leadership and show we take freedom and human rights seriously. We just have to do the right thing. It is about moral courage, not being silent when our voices and our actions need to follow that voice.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Families, Children and Social Development; the hon. member for Fredericton, COVID-19 Emergency Response; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, the Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I will start by acknowledging Irwin Cotler, who I would classify as a good friend of mine. For years we sat on the opposition benches and I truly benefited by listening to his many interjections in the House and the talks we had with each other. I have a deep amount of respect for everything he does on the issue of human rights.

It is always encouraging when the House of Commons witnesses the coming together of political parties to recognize and condemn human rights violations. However, there is a sad part to this.

It is very shameful that the last two speakers and others have taken this opportunity to take cheap political shots at the Prime Minister of Canada. If they were genuine in wanting to allow for a healthy debate on this issue, they could have forgone the cheap, unfair, untrue shots at the Prime Minister, let alone the Minister of Foreign Affairs at times. I do not say that lightly.

Let us think about it. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted in the United Nations General Assembly back in December of 1948. I understand that resolution took effect in 1952. Over 150 countries signed onto that agreement. Earlier I posed a question for the member of the opposition Conservative Party who brought forward the motion. I asked him how many countries had made the declaration that it was a genocide. The member responded that the U.S.A. was the first and only, and the new administration has reaffirmed Donald Trump's position on it.

Are the Conservatives saying that those 150 nations and their leaders should be ashamed of themselves because they are not informed or aware of what is taking place in China? Are they that naive to believe that world leaders around the globe are not aware of what is happening in China? Of course they are. The promotion of protection of human rights are integral to our foreign policy. All Canadians take human rights very seriously. It is part of our values.

We do not need to be told by Conservative political spinners that we are doing a poor job when we have in fact done a good job of ensuring that the interests of Canadians and values we hold so close in our hearts are well represented around the world. The Prime Minister of Canada, in whatever part of the world he happens to be in or whatever group he is speaking to, will talk about the important issue of human rights and the values Canadians have for it. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, whether the current or previous minister, is doing likewise, ensuring that the values Canadians hold so close are being espoused around the world.

Yes, the United States did classify it as a genocide. I hear members around the chamber talk about the subcommittee on foreign affairs and its fine work. Even Liberal members have talked about it being a genocide.

I posed a question for my New Democratic about possibly having that committee deal with this motion. I asked if there would be any harm in allowing the foreign affairs committee to take a look at it, given its very nature.

China is not a country of five million people. China has over 1.2 billion or 1.3 billion people. The economic and social tentacles in China scour the world. Do we think it is that simple? I do not believe that for a moment. I would have liked to see this motion go to the foreign affairs committee before it came to the House, because we could have benefited from seeing what that committee might come back with. The committee has easily demonstrated it can in fact put party politics to the side and come up with recommendations. It has demonstrated that.

When I posed the question for the member for St. John's East, his response to me was “Perhaps we could have done this a week from now or two weeks from now after the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has dealt with the report of the subcommittee, but we are aware of the essence of it”. That is what the New Democratic member had to say when I presented what I thought was a fairly simple suggestion.

The Conservatives are more focused on trying to score political points than they are on the human rights issue. I know that might upset some, and my apologies for those who are actually being genuine on this. However, not all Conservatives are genuine in wanting this to happen. They are more interested in trying to bash the Prime Minister and give a false impression that this government is not doing what it should be on this file. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was interesting to hear the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. On February 8, he was on Power Play, CTV. If we declare it a genocide, there is an obligation for us to take some actions. I believe that to be the case. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills said on Power Play, “Well, we're not saying that a boycott is necessarily the way to go.”

We believe that a genocide is taking place, but our primary responsibility is to protect Canadians and their interests. As a small country relative to a superpower, China, we cannot act alone. That has been made clear to us over the last several years. Whatever we do has to be in concert with our allies, including the United States, Japan, Australia and so many others. Everything should be on the table as we work to defend these interests and values.

Let us look at what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said a bit earlier today about working along with international partners. It does not mean we cannot pass this motion. However, some of the commentary that has been put on the record today to try to politicize what is taking place is unfair. The Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about an agreement that was achieved with many countries collectively. This is in regard to the two Michaels who are still in captivity in China. The minister stood with nearly 60 other countries at the launch of the declaration against arbitrary detention in the state-to-state relations. That is a clear demonstration that this government understands and appreciates, as I believe most members do if we take away the political spin, working with international partners to try to resolve the many issues that China brings to our table. This is the direction we need to take.

The stories and examples are very heartbreaking and they give a high sense of anger in all who speak on the issue of genocide. I do not understand how a human being, let alone a government, can be so cruel to another human being. I will never accept that, but the Prime Minister—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will have to give our colleagues the opportunity to question and comment on the hon. member's speech.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have had quite the debate here today. One of the frustrations is we have been talking about the human rights abuses in China against the Uighurs for a very long time, and we are still waiting for the government to take action. All we have to do is look at the Liberals' track record on other issues. They are routinely the last ones in, or quite honestly are always using delay tactics and waiting for other people to make up their minds so they can then say, “We did not have anything to do with that. It is not our fault.”

At what point are the Liberals willing to take decisive action and make up their minds, whether it is Huawei or whether it is dealing with this? When will the government take decisive action? Will it refuse to do it because it is scared that it actually has to do something if it makes a decision for once?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would cite a specific example. Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are two Canadians who are in captivity in China for no just reason. The Government of Canada worked with other nations, and now there is an agreement. It does not specify China, but there is an agreement that these sorts of detentions are wrong. That will go a long way, because the Michaels are not alone. This takes place around the world. This is just one of the things the Government of Canada is doing, along with the day-in and day-out. We heard the parliamentary secretary on that particular issue. Every day he is on that issue.

We are doing what is possible in the area of foreign affairs to protect the interests of Canadians, whether they are here or abroad.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech. He spent a large part of his time explaining how shameful it was that some opposition members were using today's motion to make the Prime Minister look bad.

I understand where he is coming from. The problem is that he spent a good chunk of his time explaining how the Prime Minister has done a good job. In all of that I did not really hear any substantive argument on the motion we are debating regarding whether we should recognize that there is a genocide against the Uighur people in China.

I want to give the member for Winnipeg North a chance to put partisanship aside and answer me. Should Parliament recognize the Uighur genocide in accordance with the conventions that Canada has signed? If not, why?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, all members of the House in all political parties would have been better served had the standing committee been afforded the opportunity to do again what it has done so well previously, in terms of its investigation that came back saying there was genocide. Allow them to let us hear what they have to say on a motion like this so that we would all be in a better position. As opposed to trying to make a political, partisan statement, we should have depoliticized a motion of this nature, given it is at the heart of Canadian values when it comes to international relations. I think we would have been better served.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about human rights and the government's record on human rights. I am thinking about here at home.

Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister to explain why the Liberals did nothing when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans knew that violence against Mi'kmaq fishers was likely, and he deflected. He said that he condemned and regretted the actions of a few in Nova Scotia, but took no responsibility for the failure of the government to protect those indigenous fishers so that they could advance their rights. He talked about politicizing what is taking place on the ground. He is doing that here. The government has been doing it with indigenous people, with no recognition of systemic racism as an issue here in Canada and no commitments to keep Mi'kmaq fishers safe when exercising their rights. I can assure the House that no indigenous people felt safer after the response from the Prime Minister yesterday.

When will the Liberal government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the parliamentary secretary five seconds to answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I represent an area of Canada that has about 20% indigenous people, 40% of Filipino heritage and 10% to 15% of Indo-Canadian heritage. Discrimination is an issue that I take very seriously and I believe that the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for tabling this motion, but with a caveat. In this chamber, we pretty well say what we wish to say within the rules of parliamentary decorum, but it is ultimately the government and the government members who will have to deal with the fallout, if any, from this debate. This chamber, however, has an opportunity to reflect the deep anger of the people of Canada toward the Chinese Communist Party: the current Government of China.

There is no question that the arrogance and ignorance of the Chinese government, as expressed by its officials and so-called diplomats, has inflamed the passions of Canadians. The most obvious point of contention is the hostage kidnapping of the Michaels by the Government of China. The Government of Canada is necessarily constrained when it deals with the reality of kidnapping. I think that was the point that my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North, was trying to make: there is a constraint imposed upon the Prime Minister when dealing with a government that kidnaps citizens of another country.

Kidnapping works. It is the hallmark of terrorists, organized crime, rogue nations and the Communist Party of China. It is contrary to the rules and values of any civilized nation, let alone the rule of law. Necessarily, the Government of Canada has had to deal with the Government of China as one would with terrorists or Mafia thugs; therefore, this has had relational consequences, as does this debate. No trade deal, convention, memorandum of understanding or contract is worth the paper it is written on with this government. Any vulnerability will be exploited by the Government of China, and there is no basis for any trust, for any undertakings or for any understandings.

It is clear that the Government of China has decided that it has no respect for any other nation, large or small. The goal is to have all nations as vassal states, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain. Even Donald Trump was at least dimly aware of the threat to the United States.

It did not have to be that way. Going back to the historic Nixon visit, it was the intention of the family of nations to bring China out of its backward state by a series of favourable trade deals, the most significant of which was admission to the World Trade Organization. For years, China has regarded the laws, conventions and rules of the WTO as casual suggestions to be ditched when convenient. It appears that cheating pays.

Widespread theft, one-sided trade admissibility, off-tariff blockage and outright corruption have fuelled China's spectacular rise in wealth, and the west has been slow to respond. Simultaneously, unanswered military aggression in the South China Sea, with the creation of artificial islands and the intimidation of other nations' navies, particularly those of the Philippines and Vietnam, has further entrenched China's bully status.

The use of its vast financial resources to buy or intimidate other nations is legendary. The government of Sri Lanka is completely at the mercy of China. Many African states are so compromised that their own people cannot get either work or food in their own nations. It is not just developing nations: widespread theft of intellectual property by Chinese entities, at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party, occurs here daily. The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and the CBC have all documented vast slave networks producing all kinds of goods, many of which infect Canada's supply chain.

Recently, CBC's Marketplace ran a piece on slave labour used in the making of PPE products that we use daily. Members will recollect that we were desperate in the last few months for products such as those.

The Globe and Mail recently reported about solar giant Canadian Solar and two mining companies that are in grave danger of having their supply chains tainted with slave labour. The Toronto Star wrote a devastating piece on shipments coming from foreign sources. The U.S. will not allow them to be sold in its country but allows them to be transshipped into another country, namely Canada.

Canadian workers and companies cannot compete with slave labour. The practice is so widespread that consideration should be given to a change in the presumptive balance, the assumption being that goods coming out of China have slave elements in them unless it is demonstrably shown to be otherwise.

In the last Parliament I introduced Bill C-423, the modern slavery act. That bill has been picked up in the Senate and is now Bill S-216. As its successor, it is making a painful way through the Senate. The Government of Canada would be well advised to take it over. It works on the presumption that Canadians would not knowingly buy products made by slaves. Companies of a certain size would be required to certify to the Minister of Public Safety that they have examined their supply chains and are satisfied that no slavery exists in them.

Wealth built on theft, intimidation, duplicity and slavery is the hallmark of this Chinese government. It should therefore be no surprise that human rights, let alone moral integrity, are foreign concepts to this deeply corrupt government. We saw the human rights of the people of Hong Kong rolled up last summer, despite the protests of millions and the treaty protection of the Sino-U.K. treaty. Taiwan endures an ever-increasing series of aggressive military provocations, regardless of the democratic aspirations of the Taiwanese people. China regards these as “internal matters”, even though they are manifestly not internal matters. There are other international concerns: border skirmishes with India, the occupation of Tibet, the abuse of its own citizens, the substantiated allegations of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners and the wanton destruction of Christian churches.

Therefore, it should be no surprise that when credible human rights organizations make credible allegations of extensive abuses of the human rights of Uighurs and Turkic Muslims, including but not limited to torture, enslavement, restrictions of freedom of movement, denial of freedom of religion and belief, denial of the right to a fair trail and so on, all the evidence points one way and all the state disinformation points the other way. The observations of any objective report point one way and one way only. Unfortunately, these are all the requisite elements of a genocide taking place against the Uighurs and Turkic Muslims.

Unfortunately, I have to support this motion. I say unfortunately because the labelling of “genocide” is very serious business and the Prime Minister is right to be cautious. The Government of China has no respect for the rights of other nations, no respect for the rights of other peoples, no respect for the rights of its own citizens and certainly no respect for the rights of minority groups. I dare say the Government of China will have no respect for the passage of this motion.

I look forward to questions from colleagues.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches all day today and taking notes. I appreciate the member's comments on the amendment and the motion in front of the House.

In the member's opinion, what are the most effective measures that democracies could take in concert to put pressure on China to change? Is it Magnitsky sanctions on particular Chinese officials? Is it using trade sanctions? Is it other forms of pressure, such as diplomatic pressure? Is it a reform of multilateral institutions to put in place mechanisms to better hold China accountable for its infractions of international law and our international rules-based system? I am wondering what in his opinion would be the most effective tools available to democracies to effect change in China.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my immediate response is all of the above. The member and I had something to do with the creation of the Magnitsky sanctions in Canada. I like what they do in terms of targeting the most egregious perpetrators of these kinds of human rights abuses. However, the limitation of the Magnitsky sanctions is that the Government of China has a pervasive government policy to carry on, as it does, with trade deals.

If there was a mechanism by which realistic trade sanctions could be coordinated by trading nations that share the same values, I would be very supportive of it. Regrettably, however, Canada is a rather small player in a rather big pond, and unless and until we have pretty well everyone in place, our unilateral responses will be brushed off by the Government of China, with possibly gross reactions that are counterproductive to the best interests of the people we hope to help.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank and congratulate our colleague.

From the beginning of his speech, I was ambivalent. I heard his reaction to China's flouting of international rights and all of the examples he provided. However, in light of his political allegiance, I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. At the end of his speech, I was and still am surprised, to his credit.

It should again be noted that the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has determined that China has committed crimes against humanity. They include concentration camps, rape, separating children from their families, slavery, mass surveillance, harassment of Uighurs abroad and mass sterilization. These things are inconceivable in 2021.

Would my colleague be willing to adopt the Bloc Québécois motion to boycott the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games in retaliation against China?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a practising parliamentarian of 23 years now, I am a big fan of committees. Sometimes they drive me crazy, but by and large, committees have the power to bring witnesses together in a manner that is extremely useful and helpful for guiding government policy. Whether it is a subcommittee or a full committee, if they have opined on taking in evidence, I would take that very seriously.

The Olympics issue is a bit of a sidebar issue in this particular debate. However, I point out that the Olympics are largely an exercise in political symbolism, and I think the political symbolism of withdrawal or shifting is something to seriously look at. I want to stay with the motion before us today, but the member does raise a valid point.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, no person can be unmoved by today's deliberations concerning Communist China's ongoing and brutally coordinated campaign of genocide against the minority Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims inside its borders. We have heard details of family separation, arrests and show trials, mass detention, campaigns of gang rape, forced injections, widespread slave labour, concentration camps and mass murders. All of this has been done under China's state police. Credible estimates place the number of Uighurs in concentration camps at over one million. The world has not witnessed anything like it since the mid- to late 20th century.

We say “never again” at solemn occasions when reflecting on past evils. We say it because it is important. It is also meaningful. However, saying “never again” is also relatively easy. This vote in our Parliament to declare an important country to be guilty of genocide will not be easy, because the vote will have consequences in rallying or even discouraging others and, of course, on Canada's federal government. If successful, Parliament's vote will inform the public, our constituents, of China's odious actions. It could propel other legislatures and other democracies to make similar declarations. It might even offer some comfort to those being persecuted that a parliament hears them. It could finally compel Canada's federal government to face facts and act in the name of our shared Canadian values.

Should the Liberal government ignore the evidence and vote against the motion on these crimes, it will provide sanctuary to the Chinese Communist Party. A vote against this motion is not an expression of neutrality, nuance or high-mindedness. Rather, a no vote is a highly visible shrug to Uighurs and a haven for the tactics of the Chinese Communist Party. I therefore implore members of the House to take a stand for the persecuted and against this genocide and back up statements of “never again” with a vote of affirmation to this motion in Parliament.

I dread that the Liberal government will remain silent, mostly because the alternative is hard. Voting yes would require subsequent government action in opposition to China's atrocities. Let us take a look. The government's position is to call for an independent investigation by sending observers to Xinjiang to determine what is happening, but the foreign minister and the Prime Minister know Beijing will never agree to this. It is an empty statement.

I am also distressed that the right path will be sidestepped for the easy path, because the Liberal government has been both weak and cowardly elsewhere in its dealings with the People's Republic of China. The Chinese Communist Party is so determined to control Uighurs that it is spending billions of dollars on facial recognition devices, electronic spying and coercive DNA collection to track their every move. Uighurs live under a totalitarian system that controls them down to their DNA.

China's Huawei has been complicit in developing this technology. Canada's security services have warned the federal government about the risks and dangers that Huawei poses to Canada and our freedom. If the Liberal government will not ban it as our allies have done, a government unwilling to ban Huawei is not likely to hold the People's Republic of China to account today.

It is not just high-tech surveillance. Uighurs are also forced into labour camps to produce products for export to the world. Uighurs are electrocuted to meet production quotas. These crimes against the Uighurs are inhumane, as international NGOs and labour groups around the world have reported and demonstrated.

In July of last year, I highlighted this mistreatment of Uighurs in labour camps. I called on the global affairs minister to launch an independent investigation into forced labour camps operating in China's northwest province. I also called for Canada's United Nations ambassador to work to reverse Beijing's appointment to a seat on the consultative group of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Sadly, the government did not act, even though it was widely reported that the Chinese Communist Party was using forced Uighur labour in Xinjiang factories and selling these made-in-China goods and materials to global brands around the world.

When the government finally responded, it was in January, and it was by the outgoing global affairs minister on the very day he was moved to another ministry. Ottawa feebly acted by announcing its intention to support tougher restrictions on products being exported from Xinjiang, but the apparent tough talk lasted less than 30 minutes before a new minister was in charge.

Even the talk by the outgoing minister was thin gruel. Unlike other international allies, which are taking tougher action to root out forced labour in commercial supply chains, the Trudeau government will not impose financial penalties on companies that do not comply.

The Trudeau government has spent the past six years extolling and overstating the importance of China—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not only once or twice, but on several occasions the member has referred to the Prime Minister by his name as opposed to his title. He is an experienced member. I am sure he can appreciate there is a rule against that, which has existed for many years.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member. I did not notice it myself, but I take the hon. parliamentary secretary at his word. I know the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest will take note of that for the remainder of his remarks.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that breach.

The federal government has spent the last six years extolling and overstating the importance of China to our nation's well-being. It has wrongly promoted economic relations with this totalitarian regime as a key tenet of Canada's foreign policy. It called for a free trade agreement without answering how a free country like Canada can trade freely with a non-market economy like China.

The government tried to work with China on developing a vaccine, but instead, our health data was stolen and Canada lost months working to secure vaccines from reliable sources. As well, the Liberal government has largely been silent on Beijing's actions to crack down on democratic expressions beyond expressions of concerns and regret. This is the wrong approach. Communist China should be labelled a perpetrator of genocide and be viewed as an outcast state. As I said, it will not be easy.

We have more friends in mainland China than perhaps we realize. They are people who want the same freedoms that they see in Taiwan and, until recently, Hong Kong, before Beijing snuffed those freedoms out. Now more than ever, Canada needs a principled foreign policy that promotes freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

I must admit my hope is eternal. Some Liberals have stood up and said, “Enough.” This includes the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood, the previous speaker. I applaud his courage. His long-standing position on these issues is well known. We can see today that more Liberal MPs realize they are on the wrong side of history. It is why we increasingly hear them say, as a way to excuse their past errors in judgment, that today's China is not the same as the China of two years ago. Of course, this is nonsense.

What has changed? Two years ago, the Liberal government was mugged by reality when two Canadians were illegally detained by China. Today's China is the same China that cracked down on students in Tiananmen Square 22 years ago. It is the same China that, after being admitted to the World Trade Organization, failed to adhere to its commitments to liberalize and open up. It is the same China that imprisons its citizens and denies them freedom of speech and press.

More recently, it is the China that has illegally expanded its territory throughout the South China Sea and claims much of that sea as its territory. Its pursuit of a predatory posture regarding our open economy is well known. It openly steals our technology and research, and let us not forget the hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens on the mainland who are denied the right to choose who will govern them.

As an aside, democracy is not alien to Chinese people. It is acted on and upheld by Taiwan, a small nation of 24 million people with democratic freedoms that mirror our own in Canada. I could go on about Beijing's recent belligerence, but I have made my points. To say that today's China is nothing like yesterday's China is to ignore its recent history under the Communists.

However, if my hon. Liberal colleagues believe today's China is acting in an uncivilized and unbecoming fashion, what are they prepared to do about it when we vote? I hope is not more nothing. I hope that on Monday they will vote on today's facts, which are that China is committing genocide against ethnic and religious minorities. They have said, “never again”, but we will see, and all Canadians will see, when that vote is called.

[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 says that the China of today has not changed at all from previous years.

Why does he believe the Harper administration entered into a secret trade agreement, without any form of parliamentary consultation, when there were human rights violations back then?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that today's government will repeal that agreement and move away from it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

It seems we agree on the fact that there are problems with respect for Uighur rights. I would refer to the testimony of Gulbahar Jalilova, a Uighur rights activist and Kazakh concentration camp survivor. She was arrested while travelling in Xinjiang and accused of being a terrorist. She refused to confess to the charges and was imprisoned, tortured, raped and forced to swallow unknown pills. She begged the guards to kill her.

It is easy to point fingers at the Liberal government now, but in 2008, the Conservatives did nothing when Beijing hosted the Olympic Games. What changed from 2008 to 2020? I think we can agree that respect for human rights in China is a long-standing problem.