Debates of Feb. 18th, 2021

Human Rights

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

...and call on the government to introduce a bill that would force web giants to pay their fair share for their use of media content.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before asking the question, I would like to remind hon. members that, out of courtesy, members listen to the entire question and then state their position.

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

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

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would like to ask the usual question of what business we can expect to be brought forward in the House in the next few days. I would remind members that parliamentarians have been ready for almost one month to debate the bill to eliminate the controversial $1,000 for non-essential travel by workers. Will the government soon introduce this bill so it can be debated and passed?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We will get to this question shortly, but I first have a statement to read. The member will then have an opportunity to repeat his question so that it may be clearly understood by all.

Criminal Code—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Following the order raised earlier today, I would like to make a statement on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to single-event sports betting and its similarity to Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sports betting, standing in the name of the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood. As members are aware, both bills seek to amend the same provision of the Criminal Code as it relates to single sports betting.

While Bill C-13 was introduced in the House on November 26, 2020, and has yet to be called for debate by the government, the general provisions surrounding single sports betting have in fact not only been debated in the House during consideration of Bill C-218, but a decision was made yesterday by the House on the general principle of allowing all single sports betting, and the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper.

The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes.

Both Bill C-218 and Bill C-13 seek to amend the same paragraph of the Criminal Code as it pertains to sports betting. Bill C-218 repeals paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code in its entirety, to make it lawful to conduct and manage a lottery scheme that involves betting on a race, a fight or a single sporting event. As for Bill C-13, it conserves the paragraph, but seeks to amend it to make single sports betting lawful, except for bets on a horse race.

The rule of anticipation, which prohibits the same question from being decided twice by the House within the same session, is explained in the following manner at page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken of the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with.

This makes clear that if two bills are similar, without being substantially the same, both may be placed on notice, introduced and given first reading, and both could even be debated at second reading, provided that the House has not taken a decision with respect to either of them.

Given the decision of the House yesterday afternoon, the question therefore before the House is, following the adoption of Bill C-218 at second reading, should Bill C-13 be permitted to proceed further in the legislative process?

In adopting Bill C-218 at second reading, the House has agreed to the principle of the bill and consequently has agreed to repealing the portion of the Criminal Code that deals with sports betting. While there are examples where the House has repealed sections of an act already amended by another bill adopted by the House in the same session, this is not exactly the situation before us today. Instead, since Bill C-218 seeks to completely repeal paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, it seems to the Chair that it would not be possible for Bill C-13 to continue in the legislative process, as it would seek to amend a paragraph of the Criminal Code that would no longer exist upon adoption of Bill C-218. In fact, the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study. As a consequence, the Chair has difficulty seeing how the House could now move forward with Bill C-13 after it has adopted the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C-13 seeks to amend.

Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with. As was mentioned during the intervention yesterday, as well as previously by the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, members who wish to further review or amend the provisions included in Bill C-218 should follow the proceedings and take part in discussions during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I thank all members for their attention.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are seriously concerned with the process of this decision.

As mentioned in your answer, the point is that we are talking about two bills. One is from the government and one is from a member of the official opposition, the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood. The government had the chance to explain itself, and I officially ask that this member of Parliament speak on behalf of his private member's bill here in the House of Commons.

This decision has been made without considering the fact that this member of Parliament had asked to talk about his bill. Unfortunately, because of the decision made right now, he will not have that chance. We are seriously concerned.

This sets a very unfortunate precedent and we have some serious concerns. When a member's own private member's bill is affected by a decision, the member should at least have the right to address the House if they want. We made an official request to do so in this case, but the member was unfortunately unable to speak.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add to this point of order as well.

I also have that same concern. I am disappointed at the timing of this ruling. The Opposition House Leader and I both stood and indicated, so it was on at least two occasions, that the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood did have points he wanted to raise on this in his point of order, and he should have that opportunity. He should have been afforded that opportunity. I am extremely disappointed that it was not given to him as a member. I think it is his right to have that opportunity.

Furthermore, we are waiting for a ruling on a question of privilege that I raised on Tuesday. You have obviously moved quickly when a member sought to intervene in this case and was not afforded that opportunity, yet you have a question of privilege on which there could have been a ruling and nobody else was seeking to intervene. It just seems to me that the timing of this is something that we should all be concerned about. I feel it is important and imperative that I raise that point with you.

I do think that the timing of this does create a real problem and a bad precedent for a member who did seek the opportunity to intervene and who did have pertinent facts, given that his private member's bill was one of the bills in question. There are serious concerns here, and I wanted to add those thoughts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a point of order.

Very quickly, I think it is worth pointing out that the point of order that was raised today that you have now responded to was specifically with respect to seeking clarification as to how things were supposed to move forward. It was not, per se, a point of order addressing a procedural error, a point of order to which other people would contribute arguments. This was just a question that was asked of you to provide clarification on what the next steps would be. In the context of what is being discussed, I think it is important to consider that aspect.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is a highly unusual situation to say the least. The government was custodian of this bill, its own bill, and did not move it rapidly through, so we are in a situation here.

I would ask if you had the chance to look at the submission I made earlier, because you did not reference it at all in your decision. There is some value to take a step back for a moment. That is not to question your judgment or capability in this; it is just that there is new information, and we want to make sure we go through a thorough process for this.

The government acted hastily yesterday. It gave no indication about its tactics of withdrawing the bill to any of us until yesterday, and then this morning we saw this action. I would ask for the process to be thorough to ensure that we do not rush to error, and perhaps take a day to allow the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood a chance to participate. That would be valuable too.

I respect your judgment on this, Mr. Speaker, but I believe it is incomplete without the chance to review my intervention earlier and the intervention from member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, whose bill I spoke of.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with all due respect, I do not understand my colleagues. This is not a a question of privilege. This is not a debate. It is a simple question for clarification that was asked of you: If Bill C-228 was adopted, could Bill C-13 continue? That is it. There is no debate. It does not affect anyone else. It was just to know whether if one were adopted, could the other continue? It was a direct question, and you answered, and that is it. There is no debate around this. It is an answer to a question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. members. I know decisions are not always easy ones, believe me. I appreciate their advisement. I will take it under that guise.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this falls into the category of weekly statements, but each week we, the government House leader and the leader of the official opposition, have this meeting on Thursday afternoon to find out where we are headed.

For the fifth time, and I am not counting what I just did about five minutes ago, we are reaching out to the government.

When will it table the bill so we can debate it here in the House and eliminate the $1,000 given to workers who travel when it is not necessary to do so?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, my colleague wants to know what the legislative agenda will be for the next few days.

Tomorrow morning, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-14, which would implement certain provisions of the economic statement. In the afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Then, Monday and Wednesday of next week, we will continue the debate on Bill C-19. On Tuesday, we will consider Senate amendments to Bill C-7, the medical assistance in dying law. I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, February 25 will be an allotted day. On Friday that same week, we will begin second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms act.

I thank my colleague for his question.

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

Opposition Motion—Religious Minorities in China

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There is one minute remaining in questions and comments for the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the heartfelt examples he presented today of what is occurring. He mentioned standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. I am wondering if the member could go into more detail as to why it is important to work with our allies, and also to show leadership on this particular issue.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the stories we have seen from the BBC, the Washington Post, The New York Times and the Associated Press have documented numerous examples of these personal stories. The people being affected in China, the Uighur people and the Turkic Muslim minority, do not have a voice. We do not need to go into why. We know why they are seeing oppression in China.

Here at home, we need to stand up for those who cannot do it for themselves. We owe it to them and our own values to do that.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for bringing this crucially important issue to the attention of both the House and Canadians. I also want to thank him for his very thoughtful speech this morning, which outlined more than a decade of persecution of the Uighur people and other Turkic Muslims in western China.

Equally, I want to thank the member for Montarville for his clear elucidation of the importance of this Canadian Parliament continuing to take strong action on the infringement of human rights in China, and the member for St. John's East for his thoughtful understanding of this not only as a political process, which we are hearing today, but also for drawing a distinction between it and the subsequent legal actions that would be necessary to engage the whole world in ending the atrocious treatment of the Uighur people.

This is an issue I have been following closely for well over a decade. The Uighur community is small in Canada, but I am privileged to represent some of them who live in my riding of Don Valley West. I have heard first-hand their stories and worries about families, friends and colleagues who remain in Xinjiang province. My first encounter with this community was with a family facing immigration difficulties imposed on them by the previous Conservative government, when I was in opposition. I was proud to stand up for them then, as I continue to be proud to stand up for them. Their faces, stories and broken hearts weigh heavily on me today.

This issue took on a larger perspective when I first met Rebiya Kadeer, who at the time was the president of the World Uyghur Congress. Known as the “dragon fighter”, she gently, passionately and intelligently told me the story of her people. It is a story that has only gotten worse over the last decade. She is not only known as the “dragon fighter”, but also as “mother of all Uighurs”. Her legacy looms large for me whenever I raise the issue of the persecution of her people.

Let me be clear: I have been and continue to be concerned, alarmed and horrified by the reports of mass arbitrary detentions and repressive surveillance; the allegations of torture, mistreatment, forced labour and forced sterilization; and the mass arbitrary separation of children from their parents by the Government of the People's Republic of China. It is wrong, and it is yet another example of the failure of the PRC to recognize the singular importance of human rights. Human rights are the bedrock of the civilized world, and to infringe upon them will never lead to peace, harmony, prosperity or the well-being of either minority or majority populations.

In 2018, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raised the alarm on this issue. It noted that repression was rampant and organized, and that other violations were undertaken by senior members of the Chinese Communist Party. Though official numbers were impossible to obtain, it indicated the number of people detained may be anywhere from tens of thousands to over a million, and reports continue to emerge regarding practices of forced labour, forced sterilization and other coercive birth control measures. Other atrocities, which some have called human rights abuses, crimes against humanity, genocidal activity or genocide itself, have been widely reported.

All of this is why the Canadian government has already acted, and will continue to act, conscientiously on the international stage regarding the persecution of the Uighur people. One of the best ways to work with international partners is to do so through multilateral institutions such as the UN. Since both the drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, governments of two parties in Canada have taken an international leadership role in human rights. Human rights issues will not be solved overnight, and require vigilance and determination. That is why Canada is committed to pushing forward on issues related to China, recognizing that the China of today is not the China of even just a few years ago.

We worked at the UN Human Rights Council. In September 2020, Canada co-hosted a side event on Hong Kong. At the General Assembly's third committee on October 6, 2020, Canada and 38 other countries co-signed a joint statement on human rights in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Also, through China's most recent UN Universal Periodic Review in 2018, Canada provided frank input on China's human rights record.

At a time when many are questioning the future of multilateralism or of diplomacy altogether, Canada is committed to playing an active role in shaping the norms and engaging the institutions that underpin our global community.

However, we know that only so much can be changed in the halls of power. That is why Canada also engages with diaspora communities, activists, civil society, journalists and human rights defenders to hear the stories of persecuted people around the world. That is how the world knows about the crackdowns on freedom of assembly and suppression of democracy in Hong Kong. That is how the world knows about restrictions of freedom, language, culture and religion, and the destruction of historic buildings and temples in Tibet. That is how the world knows about China's abuses against the Uighurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, which have all been very well enumerated today.

The mounting evidence of a systematic campaign of repression cannot be ignored. We take egregious human rights violations very seriously. We take allegations of genocide very seriously. The international community has to work together in order to investigate the egregious abuses taking place in Xinjiang. In the 21st century, there is no excuse to be unaware of these issues.

Canada is committed to engaging unilaterally, as well as alongside our partners, to advocate for the human rights of those in China. We will continue to call for unfettered access to Xinjiang for international independent observers, as we did in July 2019, June 2020 and at the UN most recently last October. We will continue to oppose China's prosecution and persecution on the basis of religion or belief for Muslims, Christians, Tibetan Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners, as we did in the 2018 UPR.

We will continue to support restored respect for civil and political rights in Hong Kong, which we have done repeatedly with like-minded allies. We will continue to oppose the death penalty in China and everywhere, seeking clemency for Canadians facing that sentence.

Finally, we will continue to work tirelessly to bring Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor home. This is something that, very frankly, motivates my work every day of my life.

It is in this spirit that I am not only speaking in this debate but also listening to the wisdom, experience, passion and care being offered by my colleagues in every party today. Canadians expect their Parliament and their government to stand up against injustices in Canada and around the world. While we may sometimes disagree about how and when to do that, I know that we all agree that Canada needs to both speak and act, to continue to fight for justice and human rights in Canada and around the world. Today, we hold the Uighur people in our thoughts, minds and hearts to do what is best and right for them.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the things my colleague said, but he has not really answered the main question, in terms of his remarks.

The parliamentary secretary knows that genocide has a specific legal meaning in international law. He knows that Canada is a party to the genocide convention, and being a party carries certain obligations. Those obligations do not depend on the actions of other parties or states.

Our commitment, as part of that multilateral instrument, is to respond in cases where genocide is taking place. We have those obligations as Canada, regardless of what other states do, although we know that other states, such as the United States, have already started to act.

The crucial question of this debate, and of this motion, is this: Does the parliamentary secretary believe that genocide is happening in the specific legal sense as defined by the convention, such that it triggers the obligations of the Government of Canada under that convention?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, for me, that is not the central question today. The central question today is about the health, well-being and human rights of the Uighur people, and how best to move on.

It is not about a Parliament deciding, in its unilateral way, anything on that issue. The Government of Canada bears the responsibility of international conventions. The Government of Canada bears the responsibility of asserting itself on the world stage. The Government of Canada continues to do that, and will continue to do that.

This issue is way bigger than the declaration of anything. It is about human rights, and let us drill down to the core of what these motions are about. They are about conversation, but they also need to be absolutely grounded in the reality of human rights atrocities. We will find every way to deal with these appropriately, honestly and with integrity on the world stage.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I somewhat agree with my Conservative colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and I somewhat disagree with the parliamentary secretary. He is skating around the issue so as not to commit to anything on behalf of his government.

In his speech, the parliamentary secretary admitted that there have been human rights violations, that there are re-education camps, rape and sterilization campaigns, all of which have been documented at the international level. Last week, we sent an open letter to the newspapers signed by all members of this House: from the Liberals to the Greens and from the Bloc Québécois to the Conservatives. All that is needed to move forward is for the Government of Canada to admit that there is a genocide, because words are important. That is all that is missing to help the Uighurs in China who are currently facing genocide.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be perfectly clear. There are many ways for us to help the Uighur people, so what I am doing today is utterly committing to listening to this debate and to hearing not only expert opinion, but also anecdotal thoughts about the current issue we are engaging in.

We will continue as a government to take the best course, always concerned about human rights and always concerned about finding the best way to do things. We will make sure we do this carefully and studiously with the best legal minds at stake, and we will make sure we get it right. The goal of government is to get it right, to do it well and to continue to make sure we do the best for the Uighur people, not the best for me or for any member of the House.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly miss the conversations I had with the member at the Canada-China relations committee.

These issues are complex, but ultimately this motion has to come to a deliberative end. We are a country that believes in the rule of law. If we see human rights abuses happening to Uighurs in China, as the member has said he clearly does, does that not compel us as a people to put the rule of law into action through the international obligations and conventions we have signed?

Does the member acknowledge that the government has an obligation to stand up for Canadian values and the rule of law on behalf of those who are—