Debates of May 11th, 2021

Public Safety

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, racism and structural inequity existed even before the pandemic, but COVID-19 has shone a light for many on the serious inequality in our country.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been public actions and calls against anti-Asian violence and racism; mass public protest movements against police violence, and to say that Black lives matter; rallies to call for justice for migrant workers; and people gathering in the streets to protest the resource extraction and development taking place on unceded indigenous land without free, prior and informed consent, and calling for a true reconciliation that dismantles colonial institutions and laws.

Transformative changes are needed in our laws, governments and institutions to reconcile and make reparations for Canada's colonial history, to root out systemic discrimination and to eliminate the root causes of poverty and inequality. Equality of rights is supposed to be at the core of Canadian law, as enshrined in our charter, yet this is not the reality for far too many people.

People do not have equal access to housing. There is no national rights-based approach to housing. There is no national urban indigenous housing plan that is by indigenous, for indigenous. Law enforcement disproportionately affects Black and indigenous people. People living with addictions cannot access the health care that they need, and instead they are criminalized. People do not enjoy equitable access to supports for early intervention, mental health and addiction. The chronic underfunding and defunding of these services is a sample of the systemic racism that exists within government.

Canada must take bold action to tackle systemic racism and recognize that racial disparities in education, learning, employment, food and water security, health and child welfare, housing and homelessness, income and social assistance, immigration and newcomer settlement, justice and policing, and poverty are persistent and real.

To improve safety for members of our community, we must invest in people. Canada can afford to have a guaranteed livable income so that everyone will have access to income, food security, safe housing and safe transportation. The Atlanta incident is a reminder of the intersections and the deadly effects of not only racism, but also misogyny. We must also address policy issues that increase people's vulnerability to violence, including fighting against the stigma that sex workers face.

While we are often tempted to think that racism is a problem confined to the United States, the truth is that racist verbal and physical attacks on Asian Canadians are on a sharp rise. According to Bloomberg, Vancouver is the Asian hate capital of North America. In Vancouver, anti-Asian hate crimes have gone up 717%. Every attack is aimed at stripping us of our sense of safety and dignity. It is a clear message to say that we are not wanted and that we do not belong.

I am glad that the House of Commons unanimously adopted my motion that calls on the government to include anti-Asian racism in Canada's anti-racism strategy and in all anti-racism policies and programs. However, we need to ensure that NGOs are provided the resources they need to help fight against Asian hate and provide support to victims. NGOs have the trust of, and relationships with, the people on the ground. They can break down cultural and language barriers, but they cannot do this from the side of their desks. Dedicated stable and predictable core funding, not just project funding, is needed to tackle this essential work.

I call on the government to take action to support the community.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague across the way for her advocacy on behalf of her own communities and other Asian communities.

Like millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, our government is very concerned by the proliferation of anti-Asian hatred and racism in Canada and in other parts of the world. Anti-Asian racism, discrimination and stigma have no place in Canada, and we condemn all forms of them.

By taking a stand, it reminds us that contrary to what many believe, anti-Asian racism is not new to Canada. Anti-Asian racism has a long history in Canada.

In a society governed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Multiculturalism Act and the Human Rights Act, hatred and racism have absolutely no place in Canada today. They pose a direct threat to the foundation of our democratic institutions, to the security of our communities and to our nationwide efforts to combat the pandemic that we face today.

Statistics Canada data, the unprecedented work of national pan-Asian organizations and data from law enforcement agencies show unequivocally that anti-Asian hatred is currently a sordid reality for far too many Canadians.

We are determined to take every measure necessary to work with the Asian communities in order to put an end to anti-Asian racism.

We have already made record investments to combat racism, including anti-Asian racism, through Canada's $45-million anti-Asian racism strategy. The Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat is working closely with Asian communities to help ensure that the federal government consistently addresses anti-Asian racism in all its programs and policies, not only in its anti-racism policies and programs.

Through budget 2021, we are investing $11 million in the Canadian Race Relations Foundation to facilitate initiatives, like the establishment of a national coalition to support Asian Canadian communities. The Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat is also collaborating with Asian organizations to see anti-Asian racism addressed in the upcoming Asian Heritage Month activities. This year's theme is recognition, resilience and resolve, an important theme to urge all Canadians to come together to combat all forms of anti-Asian racism and discrimination.

Our digital citizen initiative also supported the work of key Asian community organizations to fight anti-Asian racism.

Through budget 2021, we also invested in improving the collection and use of disaggregated data. The anti-racism strategy also provides support to the Department of Public Safety. It seeks to develop a national framework and guidelines to better respond to hate crimes, hate incidents and hate speech.

We recognize that there is much more that we need to do.

That is why our government remains committed to taking concrete action to fight anti-Asian racism. Canada's anti-racism strategy, along with all other related government programs and policies, must be introduced and designed to be effective in combatting anti-Asian racism.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, May is Asian Heritage Month. This is the second Asian Heritage Month to take place amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and rising anti-Asian hate.

To the Asian community, let this be a month to strengthen our connection to our heritage, history and community to find the strength, resilience and love that we need to fight against racism and hate. Let us hold each other in solidarity and care as our communities grieve the ongoing pandemic tragedies, especially our South Asian community with the devastating crisis in India now.

Inclusion and justice mean that all entities required for dignified living, such as income, health care and housing are accessible, and that essential workers on the front lines, including migrant workers and undocumented workers, are recognized and protected.

There must be a comprehensive and co-ordinated response to rising hate crimes that prioritizes support for NGOs on the ground. Systemic racism at all policy levels must be addressed. The government has an urgent responsibility to act.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, anti-Asian racism is unacceptable in Canada today. We all have a role to play in preventing and stopping the spread of stigma and racism, whether online, on our streets, in our homes or in the workplace.

Unfortunately, what we have witnessed over the past year shows us that, right now, the anti-Asian racism that exists in Canada stems from hatred and misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Data from Statistics Canada, law enforcement and Asian community organizations across the country shows that anti-Asian racism is bringing fear and violence to far too many of our communities.

That is why our government is committed to doing everything it can through Canada's anti-racism strategy, including the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat, and in partnership with communities of Asian descent, to combat hatred towards people of Asian descent.

Canadian Heritage

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and his heritage minister are engaged in an offensive against their critics. Yesterday the heritage minister, quoting an article, accused his critics of “a deliberate campaign of misinformation by commercial interests that would prefer to avoid the same regulatory oversight applied to broadcast media.”

While the heritage minister is quoting individuals who are part of the groups that have lobbied him and his ministry, the opponents, which he and the Prime Minister accuse of being part of a conspiracy theory and wearing tinfoil hats, number in the tens of thousands of Canadians. They include noted professors of law, Internet law experts and the former chair of the CRTC.

The government is rightly under siege for its flawed bill, Bill C-10. It is a bill that the minister seems to know shockingly little about, as evidenced in his disastrous appearances on news shows over the past two weeks.

While the minister and the Prime Minister are threatening the freedom of expression of Canadians and proposing draconian measures that would restrict and limit the expression of Canadians online, they are also proposing measures that would establish a regulatory body that could block websites from Canadians being able to see them and have social media posts ordered to be taken down. It is concerning when any government seeks to limit the freedom of expression of its citizens, especially so when it is completely unable to articulate the rationale for why this is appropriate.

The government says it is to protect Canadian culture, but there were protections included in the legislation for individual Canadians. However, the government stripped those protections, saying the bill did not need them, and now is proposing half measures that would still not address Canadians' concerns.

Some of the concerns Canadians have include the fact that the Prime Minister has a history of silencing his critics. When he is talking about being able to order web pages blocked, social media posts taken down and the regulation of social media users who have followings that meet no decided threshold, but just have a lot of followers or views, it raises concerns.

This is the same Prime Minister who fired his attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville, as she was speaking truth to power and stopping him from his attempts to interfere in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin. This is the same Prime Minister who kicked the member for Vancouver Granville and Dr. Jane Philpott out of the Liberal caucus for speaking out against him. This is the same Prime Minister who obstructed the investigation in what was later labelled the “Trudeau II Report”, which detailed his attempted interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. It is the same Prime Minister who silenced committees and parliamentarians investigating the WE scandal when he prorogued Parliament and locked the doors to this place.

Canadians are rightfully wondering, as are Internet law experts and the former chair of the CRTC, to name a few, what the government is really trying to do with this clumsy legislation and its spokesperson, the minister, who does not seem to have even read the legislation. Is it really about protecting Canadian content or, in fact, is this legislation about silencing critics of the government?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by my colleague tonight.

Our government is committed to upholding the ideals of freedom of expression and protecting Canadians' rights as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why I want to clarify that Bill C-10 in no way seeks to silence Canadians.

Our government stands strongly in favour of the protection of freedom of expression and charter rights, and it is incorrect for the opposition to state that Bill C-10 would regulate the Internet or that it would restrict freedom of expression.

I would like to point out that the act itself has a specific requirement that the Broadcasting Act be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence. I would like to further clarify that the changes that we are proposing through Bill C-10 to modernize the Broadcasting Act do not have the impact that the member opposite states.

The purpose of this modernization is to update a law that has remained unchanged since we were renting videos from the local cornerstore and we had yet to even imagine streaming services. The law is outdated and has created an uneven playing field for web giants that do not have to contribute to the creation of Canadian stories and music. Our artists have shown overwhelming support to update this law.

The bill does not apply to individuals posting content to social media. In fact, individuals are specifically excluded. This bill is not about what Canadians do online; it is about what web giants do not do in Canada, which is support Canadian works, languages, stories and music.

There is an amendment before the heritage committee that clarifies the powers that the regulator, the CRTC, would have over social media companies and the companies alone. The only things that will be asked of social media companies are the following. The first is how much revenue the platform makes in Canada, Second, they are asked to invest a certain percentage of that platform's Canadian revenues into our cultural production funds. Third, they are asked to promote and make discoverable our artists.

Another important point is that the discoverability requirement for social media companies is not the same as the one that applies to traditional TV and radio broadcasters. The social media company will not need to show or play a proportion of Canadian shows or music. The discoverability requirement for social media companies is only to make our creators discoverable, for example, to include them as suggestions in playlists.

Finally, the regulator will not have any powers relating to broadcasting standards for social media companies. The only powers will be the three that I have stated on Canadian revenue, investing in Canadian stories and music and making our artists discoverable.

I was pleased to see that Quebec's National Assembly unanimously supported Bill C-10. I would like to thank its members for their commitment to creative artists. The CRTC is not just going to start regulating content posted by users. Let me reiterate that this bill is in no way an attack on Canadians' freedom of expression.

I look forward to welcoming the justice minister's new charter statement on Bill C-10 as well as hearing from expert witnesses on the changes that have been proposed.

Canadians are at the heart of Bill C-10.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that this was not designed to target individual Canadians. However, the protection that would have protected Canadians was stripped out by Liberal members at the committee. Amendments that were proposed by the opposition that would have enshrined protections and would have done what the parliamentary secretary purported to be the intention were rejected again by Liberal members at the committee.

The Liberals and the parliamentary secretary want to make this out as if the opposition is Chicken Little and the sky is going to fall, but it is the public that is saying this. It is experts and it is law professors. Canadians have legitimate concerns about this bill. The minister went on national television and said that the bill would, in fact, apply to individual Canadians if they had enough views.

The government needs to make a decision. Is it targeting Canadians or is it not? If it is not, it needs to scrap this and come back to Canadians with something that protects their freedoms.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would invite the member opposite to actually review the amendments that are before committee at this moment. This bill had nothing to do with regulating users' content, and it is specifically excluded in the bill.

I look forward to the Conservatives doing the responsible thing and helping us to move this bill forward. We can work together to support our artists.

Numerous stakeholders have said that the Broadcasting Act is in dire need of an update. It has not been significantly updated since 1991, which was well before most Canadians had home Internet access.

I think we can all work together to make sure that we modernize the Broadcasting Act.

Foreign Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be here and to be returning the House's attention to the horrific ongoing genocide of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in China.

My question earlier was to the Prime Minister, asking if he and his government recognized the reality of this genocide and, therefore, the responsibility to protect and the obligation that the government has under the Genocide Convention to respond appropriately to that genocide by reforming supply chain legislation, by applying Magnitsky sanctions and by taking other vitally important measures that are required. As well, in my question to the Prime Minister, I specifically cited the testimony of women who had been victims of sexual violence. I asked the Prime Minister if he believed those women in their testimony, testimony that provides clear evidence of the nature of the crimes being committed by the Government of China.

I note the presence of the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs. I welcome his response, and I welcome the fact that he voted in favour of a Conservative motion to recognize the Uighur genocide. I salute the fact that he did so. I anticipate that his response will reflect his own views on that subject.

However, what we really need to know is what the position of the government is. Why is the position of the government important? As members of Parliament, we have our voices. We have the opportunity to pass legislation. We have the opportunity to advocate, but it is the government that must take so many of these critical measures in response. It is the government that has obligations under the Genocide Convention. It is the government that speaks for Canada at the United Nations and other important multilateral bodies like that. We need to know the government's position, the government's assessment of the evidence. Otherwise, it is not good enough for the Prime Minister to abstain on a critical question like this, even while most of his caucus is not convinced of his own position.

Since the House of Commons recognized the Uighur genocide, we have had recognition by the British Parliament and the Dutch Parliament. Prior to the House of Commons in Canada taking this action, two American administrations had recognized the ongoing genocide targeting Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims, so there needs to be recognition by the Government of Canada.

The parliamentary secretary recognizes that a genocide is taking place; he voted to recognize that a genocide is taking place. Why is it that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are unconvinced by the same evidence that he was convinced by? In other words, why did they refuse to vote in favour of genocide recognition when he did? Why were there no ministers? Why was the Prime Minister not willing to take this step?

Now it is months later, since that genocide recognition vote. We are into May at this point. There has been new evidence, new reports, new international actions. I wonder if the government has had a moment of clarity, an epiphany, since this issue was last discussed in the House of Commons.

I would welcome the parliamentary secretary to share with this House what the current position of the Government of Canada is with regard to whether or not Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in China are subject to an ongoing genocide, and what the position of the Government of Canada is with regard to its responsibility to protect under the Genocide Convention.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for not only his question tonight, but his questions in the House that led to this adjournment debate opportunity.

I know it is a bit unconventional, but before I begin I want to just commend the member for Vancouver East for her Adjournment Proceedings speech and the questions today regarding racism that is directed toward Asian Canadians and Asians in the world. It was a very moving speech, and it is not unrelated to this in how we handle these issues extremely carefully and cautiously, as parliamentarians.

The hon. member is raising important human rights issues, and he is correct in the fact that I share his concerns. The government shares his concerns as well, and we are gravely concerned with the human rights violations in China, particularly those affecting Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

The government is also deeply disturbed by a recent report by the BBC, which I had thought the member might bring up, regarding documenting systemic sexual violence in the so-called re-education internment camps. Canada has reviewed the recent report as well as other compelling testimonies that have been provided to us, and I want to thank the members of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights for their work on this issue, as well as many civil society partners and human rights experts who continue to document atrocities and bring them to the attention of Parliament and of government. The government takes all reports of gender-based violence extremely seriously, and we stand with those victims and survivors and call on all governments to repair, to seek justice and to bring perpetrators to justice.

There are dehumanizing acts that are abhorrent to all of us in society, and that is the crux of this. The crux of this is not about words and language; the crux is about doing something proactively and ensuring that Canada's voice is heard on the world stage and that we will make a difference. We know that survivors of these kinds of atrocities will have lifelong effects. We will stand with them always and it is incumbent upon the international community to speak out against discrimination and violence wherever and whenever it happens.

The member is also correct in understanding that Parliament has spoken on this issue and the government has listened to Parliament, and that a few parliaments in the world have spoken and, in very similar ways, their governments are also assessing the situation differently. Governments and parliaments have different roles. This Parliament needs to reflect the concerns and the cares of the people we represent, and we do that; we represent our people well and we bring those issues to the fore. The government needs to ensure that they listen to that and bring to the world's attention those concerns, in maybe different ways but with equal import.

Canada has raised the human rights situation in Xinjiang on numerous occasions at the UN, which I have elocuted here before, including at the UN Human Rights Council and at the UN General Assembly. We have met with multilateral bodies and raised these concerns, as I have said, plus we have raised these issues with our like-minded partners as well as those who do not always agree with us. We have raised the human rights issues as well in China, and will continue to do that on a regular basis.

I appreciate the opportunity to expound on this conversation. I look forward to the member's further comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the parliamentary secretary's opening comments about condemning racism in all its forms, whether it occurs here or in other places. Sadly, the parliamentary secretary did not answer my specific question, though, which is what is the position of the government with respect to the genocide.

He is right to say that parliaments and governments have different roles, but if it is a genocide then it is a genocide. Surely it is the role of Parliament as well as the role of government to tell the truth, to truthfully acknowledge genocide when genocide is taking place. We are asking the government to tell that truth, just as Parliament has.

The member is saying that the main point is not the terminology, but I would say back to him that what victims are asking of us is that they be heard and believed and protected. How can we say that we are hearing and believing the victims if we do not use the correct term to identify the atrocities that have been taking place? It is a correct identification of those atrocities that impels us to a response to action.

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

Madam Speaker, what victims of this atrocity are asking me, and I believe many members of Parliament, for is that we promote, protect and respect human rights and put them at the core of our foreign policy. That is what we are doing. We put them at the core of our foreign policy.

Canada and the Government of Canada stand in total opposition to violence and discrimination in all their forms. We will continue to speak out against acts of violence such as these and call on governments to address the root causes of all violence: systemic racism, gender-based violence, hatred, crimes against humanity and other atrocities. We will continue to work with like-minded partners and with allies in multilateral fora. We call upon the Chinese government to address egregious human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and we will do that together, I hope, with one voice from Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:19 p.m.)