Debates of Oct. 24th, 2022

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the other aspects of context for this motion is that Uighurs who have fled from China and are in other countries are increasingly facing threats and pressure because the Chinese Communist Party seeks to exert influence beyond its borders and is, in fact, putting pressure on some of these other countries around the world. Sometimes we see efforts to co-opt international organizations and co-opt international mechanisms such as Interpol that are designed for pursuing criminals internationally. Authoritarian powers want to use these mechanisms to harass dissidents internationally. This is a big challenge we face, and part of the push to have Uighurs come to Canada is recognizing that they are no longer safe in places where they may have sought refuge.

I wonder if the member has further thoughts on how we can respond to these challenges, try to prevent the negative repurposing of some of these international mechanisms and try to encourage our partners in other countries not to succumb to the pressure to send Uighurs back to China, where they may face persecution.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what can we do? We definitely need to continue the work here, but I think in the short term the best thing to do is listen to people like Mr. Tohti who are being threatened. We must listen to the testimonies of the Uighurs being forced to live with this constant threat and we must continue our work here in the House to come up with solutions to keep Uighurs safe from a regime that has lost all touch with reality and human dignity. I think the best thing we can do in the short term is to listen to them carefully and to take into consideration the terrible situations they are going through.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand in this place and represent the people of Edmonton Strathcona.

I find this to be such an important debate for us to have, but I have to say that I am disappointed that it is happening in this manner and not when more parliamentarians can join in and there can be more people to participate in the discussion. After so many years, I think the genocide happening against the Uighur people is something every parliamentarian in this place must take with the utmost seriousness, and I worry that it is not being taken as such this evening.

I am a relatively new member of Parliament and have only been in this place for three years. One of the very first things that happened after I was elected was an appointment to the international human rights subcommittee. As I think I have brought up before in this place, my whole career has been about international development, foreign affairs and sustainable development around the world, so I was appointed to be the New Democrat member on that subcommittee. I was so happy to have that opportunity, because I feel like in my heart I have spent most of my career trying to fight for the human rights of people around the world, and this felt like an opportunity to do that and perhaps take it to the next level.

One of the very first studies we undertook looked at the genocide of the Uighur people in China. I have two brothers who are very rough and tumble with me, and I was beaten up many times as a child when I was growing up. I have lots of cousins too. I think of myself as a relatively tough and robust person, but the testimony I heard from expert witnesses, Uighurs and people who experienced the genocide was the most harrowing thing I have ever heard to date. The stories of rape, of forced sterilization, of people being surveilled and of the very systematic and cold attempts to erase a people were horrific for me to hear. It was very difficult.

Of course, I am only hearing these stories; I am not experiencing them, so I always try to imagine what it must be like to be somebody from Xinjiang who is dealing with this and is not seeing the world stand up for them and not hearing people in Canada and around the world say that they are not going to tolerate this. How difficult must it be for the Uighurs not only in China but in Canada to know their loved ones are experiencing this genocide?

When I come to this debate, that is what I bring. I bring the testimony that I heard at the international human rights subcommittee. I bring all of the stories I heard in many meetings with members of the Uighur community and with many members of the community who fight for human rights.

I think this is a vitally important debate and it is vitally important that we are all here, but it was disappointing for me that we did not vote to have a debate on the report that came out of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. There was no opportunity for that debate to happen.

Of course, we know the Uighurs have raised concerns about these issues for years. We know they have been calling for more action not only from Canadian parliamentarians but from other parliamentarians for years. In fact, the recommendations that came forward from the report of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights were very clear. We asked that the Government of China be condemned for its “actions against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang”. We asked to “work with allies and multilateral organizations to help international observers gain unfettered access to Xinjiang”. We asked to “provide support through international overseas development assistance to civil society organizations especially in countries that are geopolitically important to China's Belt and Road Initiative”.

We asked to “recognize that the acts being committed in Xinjiang against Uyghurs constitute genocide and work within legal frameworks” of what that meant. We also asked to “impose sanctions under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act on all Government of China officials responsible for the perpetration of grave human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.”

We brought forward these recommendations, but we have not seen the level of action from the government that I think all of us in this place should be demanding. We have not seen the empathy and care that I think we have seen for other conflicts.

One of the things I struggle with the most in this place is that we are often in a situation where we are asked to prioritize human rights, to amplify the rights of one group of people over the rights of another. I do not know how to do that. I do not know how as parliamentarians we can do that. Of course, we need to provide whatever support is necessary to help the people in Ukraine who are struggling with a genocide of their own from the Russian Federation. We need to ensure that the people in Ukraine can flee violence, that they can come to Canada and seek safety here and that they are protected and cared for 100%.

However, as parliamentarians, we need to recognize that being from Ukraine does not make someone's life more valuable than being from Afghanistan, being a Uighur from China, being from Yemen, being from Palestine or being from Tigray. We need to recognize that Canada has an important role. We are a country of such opportunity and such wealth, and we have an important role in this world to open up our doors and welcome those who are fleeing violence, those who are fleeing persecution and those who are fleeing genocide. That is such a fundamental role for Canada. That is how many of us ended up here.

I am, in fact, a settler in this country. My family came when the Scots were being persecuted in Scotland. Canada opened its doors and welcomed us here, and, of course, generations of McPhersons, and I am also a McCoy, have flourished in Canada. Providing that opportunity for people around the world is what Canada is all about and what we need to be able to do.

I support the idea of bringing Uighurs here and ensuring that Uighurs are able to flee genocide to come here, but I have deep concerns. I think everybody in the House, including members of the government, must recognize that IRCC is broken. Immigration services with the government are broken. If anyone in the House does not agree that this is a problem, they are not listening to their constituents. They are not listening to the fact that we have massive delays and massive problems.

In Edmonton, Alberta, 636 students who were approved to study at the University of Alberta could not do so this fall because they could not get a study permit. It cost the University of Alberta $6 million. These are people who wanted to come here to study. I therefore have some concerns about the IRCC's capacity to actually welcome all of the newcomers we need to be welcoming in Canada. Absolutely there are people who are suffering around the world, and the Uighurs have been suffering for years. For years they have been calling for attention to this horrific genocide. However, Canada needs to do better at welcoming people into our country. We need to be better at doing the work of government to ensure that people can come here.

For me, I do not want to say that we need to limit how many Ukrainians, Afghans, Tigrayans or Syrians come to Canada so we can make sure that Uighurs are able to come. There needs to be something done so that all people fleeing violence have access to come here, are able to be treated with respect, are able to be protected and able to be brought here. I have this deep worry that there is a Peter-Paul mentality with the government.

In August 2021, we were going to welcome a huge number of Afghans into our country. Then, of course, the horrific war started in Ukraine, and we were going to welcome an unlimited number of Ukrainians into our country. That is great, but we do not have the capacity to do that right now.

My worry is how we are going to get there. How can we work with the government? How can all of us in this place work with and reinforce to the government how important it is that it fix our broken immigration system so that we can be the country that so many Canadians believe we are, and certainly that so many Canadians believe we should be.

There is another thing I want to raise. In terms of immigration, there are things that we can do, things that need to happen and things we can expedite to make sure that Uighurs are protected, but there are other things we can do to help the people in Xinjiang who are being persecuted right now. There is legislation before the foreign affairs committee, Bill S-211, that looks at forced labour. My opinion, and members may say this is always the NDP opinion, is that the bill does not go far enough. It would not do near enough to protect people from forced labour, slave labour or child labour around the world.

My dear colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, brought forward Bill C-262, which is an excellent example of what forced labour legislation could look like. It aligns very much with what is happening around the world, in Germany, the EU, France, Australia and the U.K. This country is at least a decade behind other countries in ensuring that we have good forced labour legislation in place.

It has been in mandate letter after mandate letter, which used to mean that action would be taken, but it does not appear to mean that any longer. I look at things like that and ask how we can make sure that Canada is not complicit in supporting forced labour, that we are ensuring that the cotton, the tomatoes and the products that come into Canada are not produced with forced or slave labour. What can we do to make that better?

There is one last thing I want to talk about today. Here is what I am struggling with in the House of Commons right now. I worry that what we are doing in this place is politicizing human rights. I worry that we are using it as a tool to cause shenanigans or gum up the work of government, and if that is the case, we should be so deeply ashamed of ourselves. Human rights are of such fundamental importance that, when they are used as a tool to gum up the work of government, it demeans every member of Parliament. When we use human rights as a trick to force things through or to stop things from going forward, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

When we talk about human rights in this place, we need to be honest with ourselves and talk about human rights across the board, because it is not okay that the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party refuses to talk about human rights in Yemen, as both of them are complicit in the selling of arms to the regime that is propping up that war.

It is not all right that neither one of them will talk about human rights in Palestine. Children in Palestine are being murdered, and neither of the parties will talk about that. That is not all right. They do not get to pick and choose human rights. They do not get to choose that the people being murdered in Tigray matter less than other people. They do not get to choose that the Uighurs do not matter because we have an economic relationship with China. That is not now human rights work. For every one of us in this place, if we believe in protecting human rights, then a human right is a human right is a human right.

It does not matter if it is a child in Palestine. It does not matter if it is a child in Yemen. It does not matter if it is a woman in Xinjiang. It does not matter if it is a woman in Ukraine. If we have a feminist foreign policy, and if we believe in human rights, all human rights matter.

I am deeply afraid that in this place we are choosing to politicize human rights. We are choosing to use human rights to forward our agenda and gum up the works of Parliament. About that, I am deeply worried.

There is a genocide happening against the Uighurs in Xinjiang. There is a genocide happening in China right now. Parliamentarians have an obligation to stand up to protect the people being persecuted. We have an obligation to welcome those people to Canada. It is not even an obligation. It is a privilege to welcome those people to Canada.

I will always stand in this place and fight for human rights. I will tell members that I will fight for all human rights, not just some of them.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her contribution to this very important debate.

I want to touch on something that she mentioned at the start of her comments, which is her work on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. We know it has received a lot of evidence over the past few Parliaments. Some of it has been troubling, and it dovetails a bit with what she was talking about in her speech. Could she comment on that?

There is this idea that nations are selective in terms of standing up to China. I say this as a Muslim-Canadian representative in the House: There has been an unfortunately large number of Muslim-majority nations that have not spoken up about the Uighurs, and have actually defended some of the practices of the People's Republic of China.

Can she enlighten the House on some of the evidence she heard at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague to be very thoughtful on issues of human rights and in his work.

As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to think about Canada's response. Obviously, there are diplomatic paths and tools we can use to work with other countries that have not come as far along in declaring a genocide. One of the things I have been pushing the government to do is to reinvest in our diplomatic core and our international development.

When Global Affairs was created, and we lost the Canadian International Development Agency, and it all became part of one pot, I feel the government prioritized trade over diplomacy and international development. That has resulted in having less ability to influence countries around the world than we used to have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated a lot of the member's speech. I did not agree with everything. I think, for instance, it is important to note that I and other members of my caucus have spoken out repeatedly about human rights in Yemen and some of the other examples she mentioned. The arms deal she referred to was signed prior to the start of the Yemen war, and we have been very critical of the atrocities in that context.

It is also important to note that tonight's debate is happening in the way it is and the time it is because a unanimous consent motion was adopted today, and it was agreed to by all parties. In terms of the process issues, we are having this debate now because, fortunately, there was agreement and the unanimous consent of the House to do so.

I want to pick up on a comment the member made about the fact that there is sometimes pressure to say if we are going to prioritize this community or that community, or prioritize this issue or that issue. Unfortunately, we have seen the government trying to help refugees in one context, which means pulling resources away from another context. I think we have seen that from the beginning of the tenure of the government.

That is why we believe, in the Conservative caucus, that part of the solution to that is strengthening the opportunities for the private, not-for-profit sector when it comes to refugee sponsorship and lifting caps on private sponsorship by trying to reduce red tape and remove barriers for private sponsoring organizations.

Frankly, that would allow us to welcome more refugees and would perhaps allow us to welcome folks in risk of persecution earlier on in the process, when those issues are identified by diaspora communities and others.

What does the member think about strengthening the opportunities for private sponsors to be involved in the refugee system and lifting caps? That could be a tool in perhaps taking the government out of needing to be responsible for prioritizing this situation versus that situation, and allow us to welcome more vulnerable people into communities that are choosing to support them as they come here.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very fascinating to me when the member talks about unanimous consent, as Conservative Party members declined unanimous consent for me to table a motion on vaccine equity today. Clearly, it works when it works for them but not when it works for others.

Frankly, the Conservative Party was atrocious when it was in power in terms of immigration. I think we can all agree that its response to the Syrian refugee crisis was disgusting. How it broke the temporary foreign workers program was horrific. I really have nothing else to say on that particular point.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague is saying about human rights. Indeed, human rights are the rights of all humans, not just those we feel like having as friends.

When my colleague was speaking, I was thinking about Sun Tzu and his treatise, The Art of War. I do not know it by heart, but I know some passages, including the one where Sun Tzu suggests to the great and powerful that they not rely too much on their great power because they might be surprised and this could end up working against them. It seems that everyone fears China, the great superpower.

How can we convince others that, in spite of everything, the overreach of a superpower can work against it and we really have to help people in a tangible way?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important conversation that we need to have as we go forward. We know that in the United States, in the next two years, there will be elections as another superpower. One of the ways Canada can help with this is to reduce our dependency on superpowers and to, in fact, diversify our relationships and have more relationships with different partners, with different members of the Indo-Pacific. I look very much forward to hearing what the Indo-Pacific strategy looks like for the government.

The fact that we should be working more with Arctic countries, the northern countries, is very important. Increasing our ties and our ability to trade and work with European countries is very important. That is one of the ways, as a medium-power country, I guess I could say, we can work with the current changing geopolitical climate.

We can expand so we are not so dependent on the United States, and become perhaps dependent on many other countries and expand our relationships, but we also need to make sure we are not so dependent on China and that we are working with some of our like-minded democracies, such as Japan and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was incredibly thoughtful. As we are having these discussions, I would like to give her an opportunity to talk about how important it is to not pick and choose when it comes to human rights.

A lot of devastating things are happening in many countries, and all of us who live in safe countries, where we largely have a good life and are not worried about genocide day to day, need to stand up to voice those things so we can encourage other countries to step up and do the same. I am wondering if this member could speak a bit about this.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely can. Something I reflect on a great deal is how Canada can play a better role, how we can play a bigger role as a country that is respected around the world, and as a country that is seen as a champion of human rights. There are many ways we can do that. One is we can have a bigger role geopolitically.

We really, for the most part, have abandoned our obligations to be a peacekeeping nation, to have peacekeepers in the field. We have never reached the obligations we promised under the Pearson Commission to reach 0.7% of ODA. We have repeatedly spoken about having a feminist government, yet we do not have a feminist foreign policy. There are many ways Canada can play an increasingly important role in the world. We just need the focus, the bravery and political will to do so.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

Today is Diwali. I want to first of all wish my wife and two boys, who are celebrating tonight in Toronto, a happy Diwali. Diwali is the festival of light. It is the triumph of light over darkness. When we talk about light over darkness, I think that is actually an apt metaphor for what we are talking about today. We are talking about shedding light on a global situation that has thus far not garnered enough international attention from western governments, literally across the board.

I am speaking about the debate we are having this evening about the deplorable human rights situation of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in East Turkestan. I use that term quite deliberately, because part of the propaganda exercised by the People's Republic of China is to refer to this area as Xinjiang or the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, but for the folks who live there and have made it their home for many years, it is known as East Turkestan.

The situation is outright deplorable. We have heard commentary in this vein thus far in tonight's debate. It is an outright attack on religion under the auspices of rooting out extremism. We have heard reference to the subcommittee on international human rights, and I want to go to a report that was done not one Parliament, but two Parliaments ago by that subcommittee. It was rendered on December 19, 2018, by the subcommittee on international human rights. I am going to read part of a section of the report that talked about what was taking place. This was four years ago, and we know that the situation has only worsened since.

In section A, paragraph 3, the report reads:

While prohibitions on outward displays of religion had formerly applied only to public sector workers and to students, “now, an entire religion is criminalized.” Witnesses described prohibitions on a wide array of religious practices or expressions of Islam through anti-terror legislation. This includes a prohibition on facial hair and religious clothing. Individuals with names bearing religious significance have been forced to change their names. Qurans, religious literature and prayer mats kept at home are confiscated. Keeping Islamic dietary practices is prohibited. Halal signs are now illegal, and restaurants must stay open during Ramadan. It is also prohibited to teach Islam to children. Individuals have been detained for praying five times a day and for circulating religious text among family. Most mosques have been demolished; the Muslim call to prayer is no longer heard. Effectively, outward displays of faith among Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other Turkic Muslims in the XUAR have effectively stopped.

I read that out in its entirety because it carries a lot of impact in terms of helping members of this House to understand and in terms of helping Canadians watching these parliamentary proceedings to understand exactly what is transpiring. Again, this report was rendered at the end of December 2018.

We understand this attack on Muslims in the People's Republic as part of a broader sweep of attacks. I am sure that if they have not come up yet, they are going to come up in the context of tonight's debate: attacks on Hong Kong democracy protesters, attacks on people who dare to practise Falun Gong and are members of Falun Gong, attacks on Tibetan Buddhists, of whom I represent several thousand in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, whose linguistic, religious and cultural traditions are being repressed and actively attacked. That has been the status quo since 1959.

The repression of Tibetan religious practices dates back over 60 years. The repression, in its acute form, of Uighur Muslims dates over the last 20 years, also outlined in that subcommittee report.

What is interesting is that it also spills over, so we are not talking just about an internal domestic situation within the People's Republic of China. There is pressure exercised on nations that are largely dependent economically on China to deport Uighurs back to the PRC, so they can effectively undergo persecution under the guise of re-education. There is targeting of Uighurs here in Canada, Uighurs like Mehmet Tohti, whose name has been mentioned before, who dare to speak up or to try to reach out and contact their loved ones, who have effectively disappeared into camps in China.

There is the targeting of others here, such as Tibetans, some of whom are my constituents. One of them, whom I want to mention by name, has decided not to be silenced and not to let attacks or surveillance or harassment or bullying diminish her voice. In fact, that woman, even today, is running for municipal office in the city of Toronto.

Her name is Chemi Lhamo. She is a former intern who served in my office. She is a very proud Tibetan Canadian and a very strong advocate. I salute her for having the courage to not be silenced but to continue to advocate for the causes she believes in and for seeking public office this very evening through a city council seat in Parkdale—High Park.

The human rights violations also raise grave concerns because they harken back to a different time. What am I speaking about here? I am speaking about the massive detention camps that we have learned about through human rights accounts, through parliamentary studies and through the debates that are entering this chamber this very evening. These detention camps are occurring as we speak in the People's Republic of China, housing, by some accounts, hundreds of thousands of Uighurs. By other accounts, over a million Uighurs are being housed in these detention camps.

People have used the term “concentration camps”. That harkens back to only one thing for every one of us in this chamber. That harkens back to World War II Europe and the devastation and horrific human rights abuses that were wrought by the Third Reich at that time, yet that is what we are talking about in 2022 on this planet in a country in Asia in the People's Republic of China.

What is taking place in these camps? Again, I am going to go back to this report. I am in chapter C, paragraph 17. It talks about these camps, political re-education camps. A witness named Mr. Byler described sessions where detainees were forced to publicly denounce their past crimes such as studying the Quran, learning Arabic or travelling abroad. Those who did not fully comply faced harsh punishment, including psychological measures designed to break the detainees, including the targeting of their families, their masculinity or forcing them to eat pork.

I want members to digest that. I apologize for the pun, but it is the idea of openly violating a person's religious traditions in the name of re-educating someone out of their Islamic practices, in violation of strict religious dietary laws. The punishments include beatings, stress positions and isolation. This is what is transpiring right now. This is what we are speaking about.

In these final few minutes, I want to talk about the reproductive rights of people in East Turkestan. We have heard about forced sterilization. Forced sterilization and, indeed, forced abortions were cited by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in a report that is dated this year, August 22, 2022. What they talk about is forced sterilization.

We have heard about the definition of genocide. I am going to cite it now. I do this having been a UN war crimes prosecutor on the Rwandan genocide. I think it is important to turn back to how genocide is defined. A genocide is defined in the UN convention under article II as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” and then it lists five different indicia. The fourth is “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.

There is only one way to characterize a forced sterilization or a forced abortion. The rates of population growth among Uighurs in East Turkestan are one-sixth of what they are in the rest of the People's Republic of China. We know what is going on. If that can be proven as evidence and successfully prosecuted, that amounts to genocide. That is why this debate is important. That is why what this motion calls for is important.

Let me finish on this motion because it calls for understanding the pressure that Uighurs in third countries are facing in terms of their fear of deportation and making sure that Canadian immigration measures are supple and flexible enough to accept these individuals. I say this quite emotionally. We heard the member opposite talk about those who have faced safe haven or received safe haven in this country. I include myself among those persons. Fifty years ago, I came here as a Ugandan Asian refugee at the age of 10 months, fleeing the persecution of a guy named Idi Amin Dada, who decided that there was no place for Asians in Uganda at that time. If Canada did not open its doors then, I would not be standing here today.

Canada has a moral duty and an obligation to ensure we continue that humanitarian tradition. Doing so through immigration measures, such as those being proposed today, is one way we can do exactly that and show the world that the persecution being faced by Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in the People's Republic is unjust and cannot be countenanced. To go back to the metaphor of light over darkness, that is the light that we need to shine today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure working with my friend opposite on the Tibet friendship group, and I thank him for speaking to the motion today.

The motion identifies the fact that Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims face an ongoing genocide. The member quite eloquently, especially in the final minutes of his speech, made precisely the case for that genocide recognition. There was a motion in this House a year and a half ago on which the government, speaking not of the entire Liberal caucus but the government, chose to abstain. At the time, the government said it was studying the issue.

A lot has happened in the last year and a half. The member mentioned the UN human rights commissioner's report as well, which is new since the House of Commons motion. Could he clarify, if he is able to, the position of his government on this motion and, flowing from that, whether the position of the Government of Canada today is that Uighurs are subject to an ongoing genocide?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his comments today and on many days on this issue, among others exposing international human rights violations.

In terms of the motion that was before this chamber, the member opposite knows that I voted very much in favour of that motion. The position of cabinet was as displayed, in terms of the vote that was taken.

I will say to him quite candidly that as the days go by, as we see what the People's Republic of China is doing as a government and what President Xi is doing as a leader in terms of entrenching himself in perpetuity, it would seem, I think people, parliamentarians and elected governments around the planet are really taking note of what is at stake.

What is at stake is really a strident China that is threatening a region and threatening a planet in terms of a lot of its practices. Those extend to Uighur rights and also to the rights of Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, folks from Tibet and people who would seek to defend or assert their rights within the context of China and just assert simple, basic religious and racial rights and freedoms. That is what everyone is taking note of.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention today was very interesting, very heartfelt and very intelligently delivered.

I have some concerns about what Canada can do in addition to the efforts to allow Uighurs to come to Canada to flee persecution. However, I wonder whether the member can talk a bit about the potential for the government to impose sanctions on those responsible for this genocide and what additional steps the Canadian government can take to ensure those sanctions are not just put in place and named, but also enforced and made effective.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really important question. What I have noted in the seven years that I have been serving in this chamber is, first of all, an aptitude toward enacting Magnitsky sanctions, for example, strengthening the Special Economic Measures Act and then seeking to apply it.

I will take a note from the remarks the member delivered earlier about not cherry-picking where we wade in with sanctions and not being selective by picking on convenient targets, but also looking at the somewhat less convenient targets, if I can put it that way.

I know, for example, in terms of the Ukrainian conflict, we have imposed a rash of over 1,000 sanctions on Russians, but we have not been as strident in other parts of the world. Speaking, again, very candidly, we need to be more open to expanding the sanctions envelope and targeting them toward other individuals.

I know some Chinese officials have been sanctioned by the government. Certainly, on this issue, among others, and the member was including Hong Kongers, Taiwanese and Tibetans, I think there is more room for such sanctions to be applied and then for further seeking to ensure how such sanctions have bitten, so to speak, so we know they are actually doing the work they are meant to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope I am audible with the microphones here. I know my voice is gone. I do not have COVID. I tested negative, but I am here to speak to the motion the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan brought forth.

This is an important debate and, I would suggest, a preview of what we will be seeing on Wednesday and in December when we will be discussing my own motion, which is Motion No. 62. It relates to resettlement and calls upon the Government of Canada to resettle 10,000 Uighur here in our country to provide safe refuge as of 2024.

My motion calls for us as a country to welcome 10,000 from third countries, not from within China but Uighur people and other Turkic minorities who are living in, for example, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and many different countries around the world. Why? It is for the exact reason we in this House have said: They are suffering a genocide. Not only are we saying this today, but we said it in this House on February 22, 2021. We were unanimous in saying so. We spoke with one voice, and I would like us again to speak with one voice, not only here today and now but also this coming Wednesday and again when we speak in December on this exact same thing.

We are all from different political families, and we posture, position and angle in different ways in order to get our sound bite, our headline in the newspaper and our quotes, but this issue is an issue of grave importance. It is one in which we should be united, moving together in one direction. It is an issue of genocide, not only the political rhetoric of genocide but the legal definition of genocide. This has been the opinion of legal scholars and of a people's tribunal, and this is the opinion of this House.

The genocide convention of 1951 was brought into force after World War II, after the Holocaust when there was an attempt to wipe out a people. We, as an international community said never again and that we would not allow this kind of behaviour to exist on the face of our earth, but it is happening right now.

Legally, what does genocide mean? It means that there is an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. They do not have to do it, but they have to intend to do it. There are five enumerated aspects of this legal definition. It includes killing members of the group. It includes causing serious bodily harm. It includes inflicting conditions on a group calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, such as imposing measures to prevent births and forcibly transferring children of the group out of their group to another group.

Jurists have said that what is happening to the Uighur people meets all five aspects of the genocide convention. The people's tribunal, though, said specifically that, while it did not determine on all five aspects, the forced sterilizations were genocidal in intent. We heard from other members previously who talked about forced sterilizations. We heard their impact on the reduction of births in the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region.

Thus, it is incumbent upon us in this House to speak with one voice. I would ask that members put aside the partisan angling and the jockeying, and move with one force. It is important for us as a country to have a single thrust on this issue. If we are able to do that, we can and we will, hopefully, resettle at least 10,000, if not more, Uighurs.

However, if we are going to posture and position while we are having these important debates, then we will find that our energy is not focused in one direction. Instead of fighting to save people, we are fighting ourselves. There is no dignity or respect in that. There is no honour in that. It is something that we should be ashamed of. This is a moment for us to save lives. Let us do it. Let us speak with one voice. Let us encourage each other to do it.

As we are going to enter this debate on Wednesday, I ask that people reflect on this. If we actually want to have strength as a country in terms of resettling people here, we are not dealing with a small opponent or a small country that is committing genocide. We are dealing with a juggernaut of a nation. If we hope to put a dent in that genocide, then we must move together as a single hand and not as open digits.

Where are we at right now? We are at a time of reflection. We have two days to see how we will create our next speeches, what positions we will take and how we will debate the motion that I bring forth on Wednesday. I hope, expect and believe that we will move together as one.

There are so many human rights cases on the face of this earth, which is not to say that we should not speak to them openly and publicly, but we have an opportunity right now to make an impact. Sometimes we have to focus to get success, and that is what we are doing on Wednesday. We are going to focus. I ask us to focus so that we can get success and bring this thing home. If we do speak with one voice, our government will listen. It will make it more likely for our government to listen if we do speak with one clear voice.

We heard about Michelle Bachelet's report, which said that the allegations of the Uighur people were well founded and that they may amount to international crimes, including crimes against humanity. We know that our country's responsibility to protect is engaged not only when we have established that crimes against humanity are occurring, but when there is the possibility of crimes against humanity occurring. This is what Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, actually said: that there may be crimes against humanity. Therefore, our responsibility to protect is engaged. This motion allows us to fulfill that responsibility in part, not in whole but in part.

To conclude, let us move together as one force so that we can have success in this. For those who are listening, I ask them to bring this to their colleagues to reflect on it personally and to come back on Wednesday with some gusto and a united front.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to speaking to my friend's motion on Wednesday, and I thank him for his work on that.

The member spoke at the end of his speech about a united front. I know that he was not referring to the United Front. Maybe we need a united front to counter the United Front.

As well, I agree with his point about the fact that, as a state party to the genocide convention, we have obligations. Those obligations are not dependent on a determination by the UN, and they are not dependent on its being definitively a genocide. Those obligations are engaged when there is a possibility of genocide. We heard this testimony very clearly from Irwin Cotler during the initial hearings that led to the recommendation by the subcommittee on human rights of the finding of genocide.

The member's motion speaks of 10,000 over two years starting in 2024. He is giving the government time, and I appreciate the member's principle and pragmatism in trying to push these things forward. Is the member hoping that the government will exceed that timeline if the motion is adopted? I wonder if the member could speak to the imminent danger certainly that many people are in right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for that important observation, that Uighur people are right now suffering a genocide and that we need to act as soon as possible to help people. The sad reality is that we cannot go into China to stop it. We need to continue to work with the international community and call for unfettered access, because it is only with unfettered access that this will stop. We know it is occurring. The satellite images show it. The China papers have revealed the intent. We see the birth rates dropping. To the member's correct observation, it is happening right now. We must act immediately and without delay. My motion brings things forth to the earliest possible time, so that we can get this done effectively and in a fulsome manner.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for persevering through that speech. I hope he gets a lozenge by Wednesday, so he can be in better shape as we all discuss his motion, which of course I will be supporting. I am incredibly honoured to be able to work with the member as he brings this motion forward.

I bring some legitimate concerns that the governing party is not acting on this and that it has taken a private member's motion to bring this forward rather than government legislation, which we know could also be done. I wonder why the member thinks that so long into this, after we have done the work, and I did this work with the member at the international human rights subcommittee, it is still on a private member's motion that we are acting.

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

Mr. Speaker, lawyers say we cannot put ourselves in the mind of somebody else, so I cannot put myself in the mind of anyone else; I can just control what I do. I had a slot in the lottery that allowed me to put forth any piece of legislation or motion, and of all the things I am working on, I chose this one issue, because I knew that through this I could have a positive impact, that we could have a positive impact. At the end of the day, it is all of us who must move together.

Personally, this slot was utilized in order to have the most positive impact within my ability, and that is exactly what I have done. I am asking everyone here to hold my hand and make it possible. I know that it is going to happen. I believe it is going to happen, and I expect it to happen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member across the way for his work on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights and for his work in passing the report through this place, calling for the government to recognize the genocide that is happening there.

I note that this member is very active on it, but my question for him is this. If we continue to wait for the government to take action on it, when does he think the government will be taking action on this declaration of Uighur genocide?

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

Mr. Speaker, as politicians we know that everything is movable and nothing is determined in advance. That is why I make the clear call for us to unite together in order to make the possible happen. Thus, I will keep it very simple and to that single point. That is my firm opinion. If we ask for it and call for it, it is possible, so let us make it happen.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak to this motion today.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

I am proud to speak to this motion on behalf of my constituents in Saskatoon West. It is a very important motion and I want to note that the motion came from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I am a proud member and have been since this Parliament resumed a little over a year ago.

I am also proud to say that last week I was elected by my colleagues as the vice-chair on the committee, which is new for me. Along with my work as the associate shadow minister for immigration, it is a very important role and I am thankful for the faith that the leader of my party and my constituents have put in me for that. My goal is to work with MPs from all parties to better our immigration system. This does not have to be a partisan issue, so I have some key priorities as I work with the immigration committee and immigration in general.

We need to hold the government to account when it makes errors that affect people. We all need to work together to improve the system and fix the problems. There are so many examples I see in my work of people who are stranded from their families. These are true life-and-death situations for them. We, as MPs, have to remember that the people we work with are not files but people and families with real issues. We need to always keep that in mind.

I am also very excited to work on the student direct stream. That is important for us. We know the IRCC is broken when it comes to backlogs. MP offices are inundated with immigration cases every day. I am sure everyone is in the same boat. That is also very important to me.

Finally, foreign credential recognition is a huge issue for me. That is why I put forward my private member's bill, Bill C-286, to help improve that situation and work with the government to try to make that situation better so that new immigrants coming to our country can work in the jobs in which they are trained, rather than having the classic “doctor driving a taxicab” situation. That is very important.

About 20 months ago, the House adopted a different motion, declaring that China's treatment of Uighurs and Turkic minorities constitutes a genocide. This was a Conservative motion and it was unanimously agreed to by the House, but it is disappointing that the Liberal cabinet did not vote for it. In fact, it abstained. It has had no position on this. It is unfortunate because, as has been discussed tonight, this is a very important issue through which we can make a difference in people's lives in a huge way. I would encourage the Liberal cabinet to take a position and take some action on this.

The other interesting thing that happened just recently was that the United Nations officially recognized that horrific crimes are occurring in the Xinjiang province of China against the Uighur people. This is a very significant move. For the United Nations to recognize and mention this is very significant and will definitely raise the profile of this and allow for more work to be done.

In the report that the UN submitted in August, it said “serious human rights violations” have been happening, things like beatings, solitary confinement, waterboarding, forced sterilization and the destruction of mosques in communities. These are all terrible things for a government to be doing against its people. The report stopped short of using the word “genocide”, but it did say that reports of all of the things I just mentioned were credible reports and are real. China, of course, reacted very angrily to this and fought very hard to prevent the United Nations from actually publishing this report. However, in the end, it was published.

I want to also stress that, as I speak somewhat negatively about the Chinese Communist Party, it is so important to remember that I am not speaking negatively about Chinese people. There is a big difference between the Chinese people and the party that is running their country as a dictatorship. The issues that I am reacting to are with the Chinese Communist Party and not with the people of China. I have many good friends from China and many others that I have met. They are wonderful people. It is their government that I struggle with.

The Chinese government claims many things about the Uighurs. For example, when the world, the United Nations and others, see something that looks a lot like concentration camps, it says, no, they are just re-education camps. It has some very nice names for the atrocities that it is committing against the people. We can see through that. We know that is just not true.

We have to be very careful about the Chinese Communist Party. Members may be aware that on the weekend it had its congress, which it has once every five years. One thing I found particularly interesting was that former president Hu was forcibly removed, as a show of strength by the current president, Xi. We can see video of that, of his literally being picked up and taken away during the meeting as a way for the current president to show his power and strength. It is quite an amazing thing that has been heavily censored in China. The government does not want Chinese people to know about that, but it is quite interesting.

That is why I am concerned about our Prime Minister. He said he has admiration for China's basic dictatorship. I know that is not what we want in this place, and I am sure he has changed his position, or at least I hope he has.

I am concerned, though. We know there are Chinese police stations in Toronto now. We do not know exactly what they are doing, but I think we can probably safely assume they are harassing expats, among other things. I am hoping we can learn from this and maybe eliminate some of these things, like these police stations in Toronto.

I am hoping, also, to pass another motion at the immigration committee related to Hong Kong. We know there are special measures in place right now, but they expire in February. I am hoping we can not only extend those measures but waive the requirement for police certificates. It is quite silly, I think, that a Hong Kong resident who wants to come to Canada has to get a police certificate, which essentially means walking into a government office and saying, “Hi, I want to leave the country and go to Canada,” and then expecting to get good treatment. It is just not reasonable, and many Hong Kongers are not even trying to come to Canada because of that.

I want to look at the motion itself. Part of the reason for this motion, I think, as I indicated, is that we talked about this 20 months ago and nothing much has happened. Part of the purpose here is just to remind the government, again, of how important this issue is, to put it on the radar and make sure the government is aware of it. I think that is one of the really important reasons for bringing this motion forward today.

Another point I want to make is that in section a) it talks about some of the things we can do. It talks about special immigration measures for Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims.

The government might say that these people are totally free to claim asylum, and that is true, but we have a very congested system in Canada. As I mentioned already, it is backlogged. There are a lot of things going on. We have the ability to create special immigration measures, and we have done this, in fact. We did this for Syrians. We have done it for Afghans, and we have most recently done it in Ukraine, for Ukrainian people.

It is something we can definitely do, and it actually helps, because it creates a special program that gets them priority and gets them special treatment. Otherwise, it is very difficult for people who are fleeing something that is very significant for them.

The other thing I want to mention is that point c) talks about waiving the UNHCR refugee determination. That is an important thing, because right now the UNHCR is able to determine who is and who is not a refugee. It is an administrative process, but it is super important, because if one is designated as a refugee, it gives one access to a whole lot of different programs that one may not otherwise have been able to access. If one is not a refugee, then one is excluded from all those things.

We have heard a lot of testimony at our committee about this very issue, about how bias gets introduced into the system and the method for selecting who is and who is not a refugee. One can have racism and other things that enter into it, because, obviously, people are making these determinations.

One of the things that have come up in that is the persecution of minority religions, particularly Christians. Former London chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, said in 2014, “The persecution of Christians throughout much of the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and elsewhere is one of the crimes against humanity of our time, and I am appalled at the lack of protest it has evoked.”

This is a very important issue for me. I want to make sure that Christians who are persecuted all around the world have a safe haven in Canada, and that they are selected to be refugees by the UNHCR and other things.

It has been mentioned that this is a genocide. I was in Rwanda in April of this year, and I have been there a number of times. I had the privilege, a very holy privilege, to see what has happened in Rwanda and the aftermath of the genocide that happened there. Many of the same things that were mentioned here happened there. We all know the story of Rwanda.

Fortunately, Rwanda has managed to come out of that, but the genocide against the Tutsis was very significant. We said, “Never again,” and I just hope we can also say, “Never again,” about the Uighurs.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I do worry about genocides happening around the world in many different locations, including in Xinjiang with the Uighur people. There is a need for us to say, and mean, “never again”.

We were able to vote on the motion to declare the Uighur genocide years ago. The Subcommittee on International Human Rights declared it a genocide years ago, yet the government has still taken very little action to both condemn and stop the genocide, as well as to help the Uighur people come to Canada to escape persecution.

Can he talk about why it has taken so long?