Debates of Oct. 24th, 2022

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Order. Another member is asking a question.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for earlier drawing attention to the fact that there were no members of the official opposition in the House for the member's speech. I apologize for saying that.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order—

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

The hon. member is apologizing for saying something.

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

Madam Speaker, she is doing indirectly what she cannot do directly, and she knows it.

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

We are going into debate right now. I did call it when it happened.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, we speak often about family-friendliness. My daughter is in town, and I was in the lobby with her, listening to the speech—

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

Honestly, this is really getting into debate. We are not going—

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

Madam Speaker, for the member to try to make a grand point—

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

We are not going to start debating. We know that we cannot talk about who is in the House and who is not, period. It is not a subject for discussion.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona on a question, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that for many of us, having our family in town is a very special event. My son, Maclean, is in town today. My nephew, William, is in town. Of course, I will not be seeing them this evening because I am participating in this debate.

However, the importance of what is happening in China with the Uighur people is vital. I was part of the subcommittee that brought forward this report. I wonder if the member could talk a little about the motion that we will be debating tomorrow on the Uighur genocide and the impacts that debate will have on how our Parliament can move forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that the standing committee had a good, thorough discussion in regard to the issue and then presented it in the form of a report. The report has some wonderful thoughts that we could share with the House. For example, it reads:

a) extend existing special immigration measures to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, including the expansion of biometrics collection capabilities in third countries and the issuance of Temporary Resident Permits and single journey travel documents to those without a passport

In other words, our standing committees do phenomenal work, and I think at times that gets lost. I would like to think there are all sorts of forums in which we can have the type of debate that is necessary, so that as a House of Commons we can speak not only to Canadians but in fact to the world. A lot of that good work takes place in our committees.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated that the member worked into his speech on this motion this evening the importance of the United Nations in multilateral work. It is the definition of multilateral work that we have a United Nations and that we are able to work within it even in times when the world is in graver crises than we have seen, I think, in my whole lifetime. We are closer to nuclear war, and we have more conflicts around the world.

I would ask the hon. member whether the United Nations cannot do more to speak out and to ensure that we protect the Uighur Muslim population from genocide.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question, because from a personal perspective and that of my Liberal colleagues, we understand and appreciate the important role the United Nation plays in our world today. I believe we will be a better planet, the stronger the United Nations is. The work it does in regard to human rights and dignity for individuals is so critically important.

If, in fact, we are going to learn from history and try to build strong pathways to minimizing human rights violations, then we need to have institutions like the United Nations. That is why, as a government and no matter what political stripe we happen to be, we should be very supportive of the efforts taking place through our United Nations.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for highlighting the functioning of the House of Commons and the importance of the debates we have here.

When I was coming to the Hill today, I was prepared to talk about Bill S-5. I told my community that we were going to be talking about Bill S-5. I sit on the environment committee, and I wanted to hear what other members were going to say about Bill S-5. However, when I came into the chamber, we were not talking about Bill S-5.

In order for us to prepare as parliamentarians, could the hon. member talk about how we could do a better job at setting agendas and sticking to agendas?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

I would suggest that one of the ways we could be encouraging is on certain legislation, in particular legislation where we have what appears to be all-party support, which is where all political parties are going to be voting in favour of the legislation to at least go to committee. I think it is exceptionally helpful, and I did this when I was in opposition: We would give a clear indication that we would have x number of speakers, or we would anticipate a certain number of days so that we could better plan for it, and if there was a need to sit on an evening in order to get something passed, then we were open to doing that.

This allows members like my friend and colleague the opportunity to share with constituents if they want to tune in and watch or to come in and participate by viewing the debate in the public galleries. It just allows for better functionality of the House of Commons.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I feel like a bit of an impostor speaking on this topic tonight, especially since the person who told me about the issues facing the Uighurs is the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean. This topic is a major concern of his, which is clear from the political action he has taken. Technically, it should have been up to him to make this little presentation. Unfortunately, he is not here—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member to remind him not to mention the presence or absence of another member in the House, even if it is done with the best of intentions.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure he will not mind.

It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of all measures seeking to protect Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in China by resettling them in Canada. We are prepared to go even further. As a result of the member's discussions with some Uighur groups, we think the motion needs to be improved. We need to increase the number of refugees the committee has asked the government to approve, through this motion, from 10,000 to 15,000.

As I said earlier, without mentioning his absence, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean made a point of talking to all the members of our political party about what is happening to Uighurs in Xinjiang.

I would remind the House that it was the Bloc Québécois that drew attention to the Chinese genocide by trying to amend a motion moved in February 2021 in an effort to force the government to demand that the Olympic Games be moved from China. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in that endeavour, and the government settled for a diplomatic boycott, which had no effect.

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean moved the amendment and the motion in 2021 to clearly demonstrate that China was trying to use the Olympic Games as propaganda. Unfortunately, the government did not denounce the situation as firmly as we would have liked.

I also want to highlight the participation of the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean in a meeting in Prague with the Uighurs at a time when the member's motion on the possibility of moving the Olympic Games was recognized. I know that the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean will be in Belgium next month, once again to support the Uighurs.

Now that I am done praising the member, let us move on to other matters.

I believe that the government is demonstrating a lack of courage on the issue of the Uighurs. It is rather ironic to see that Motion No. 62 was moved by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard even though that Liberal member is part of the very government that hesitated to acknowledge the Uighur genocide. I remind members that the Prime Minister and ministers did not want to recognize the genocide. They did not speak up.

Something rather unfortunate happened earlier. I really like the member for Winnipeg North, but I get the impression that he was being excessively partisan when he pointed out what he felt were the Conservatives' misguided intentions by making this debate about an issue as vital as the situation of the Uighurs. What the member for Winnipeg North is doing is engaging in partisanship.

We could accuse him of the same thing, since his government preferred to resort to subterfuge because it did not want to offend China. I was texting with the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean earlier and he was telling me that some Uighur people are listening to the debate we are having right now and they are very disappointed with the government's response.

If we do not want to play partisan games, then we cannot use something like a genocide to say that this issue is not important and can be put off until later. I really like the member for Winnipeg North, but that was completely unacceptable to me, and I think that is the message that the Uighurs want us to pass on to the government today.

In my opinion, lack of recognition is a big problem for the Uighurs. I recently read La leçon de Rosalinde, a book written by Mustapha Fahmi, a former university colleague and Shakespearean expert. A Shakespearean expert is always interesting. He gave a definition of recognition that I want to share with you.

I will quote Mr. Fahmi, as follows: Recognizing a person or a community does not mean recognizing their existence, let alone tolerating them. Recognition is a complete and unmasked presence before the problems of others. In other words, to recognize someone is, above all, to recognize their pain and suffering.

I want to focus on this quote from Mr. Fahmi. I like the bit about recognition being a complete and unmasked presence. I get the impression that the government was not unmasked in dealing with the Uighurs. Why did that mask not come off? It was because the government never allowed the executive, the ministers and the Prime Minister to offer this recognition to the Uighurs. It wanted to score political points with China, for strategic and economic purposes.

In my opinion, recognizing someone cannot involve this subterfuge of lying low to avoid strategic or economic setbacks. That holds especially true with this situation the Uighurs find themselves in. I say that because I was able to meet with some Uighur activists through the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. The recognition I would like to offer today is to those activists, especially to Mehmet Tohti.

Mr. Tohti is a Uighur Canadian activist who has campaigned for the rights of Uighurs for over a decade. Born in the ancient city of Kashgar in northwestern China, Mr. Tohti studied biology at Kashgar University, then went on to teach the subject. When Mr. Tohti was 26, with conditions worsening for Uighurs, he was forced to leave China for Turkey, eventually making his way to Canada. He served as co-founder and vice-president of the World Uyghur Congress and is now the executive director of the Ottawa-based Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project. We met him on on numerous occasions, and he helped us understand what is happening to the Uighurs.

He pushed, he lobbied, he spared no effort to ensure that an overwhelming majority of members of the House of Commons voted in favour of the motion recognizing China's genocide against the Uighur minority. Unfortunately, the executive branch turned a deaf ear. He is under constant threat, but he continues to pressure the government and Canadian businesses to boycott goods made by Uighur slaves. I encourage my colleagues to meet him. They can look forward to very interesting discussions.

I am also thinking about Mr. Dolkun Isa, a physician who founded a student union in 1985. In 1988, after some demonstrations, he was kicked out of university. He has fully experienced the discrimination against the Uighurs. He was arrested in Beijing and was forced to flee to Turkey before seeking asylum in Germany in 1996. He was in Ottawa a few months ago and we had a chance to talk to him. He is wanted by China. In 1997, Interpol issued a red notice against him based on false accusations. It was later retracted in 2018.

I am also thinking about Mr. Kayum Masimov, who lives in Quebec. He is a Montrealer of Uighur origin who is also advocating for the rights of Uighurs. He talked to us about certain mining companies that apparently have their headquarters in Montreal and who use Uighur labour in the form of slavery. He talked to us about that. He often works as a Uighur interpreter at meetings of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. He is married to a Quebec woman and is very well established in Quebec. He has first-hand experience of what Uighurs are going through and he deserves this recognition.

I am saying that this recognition is important. If we want to do something for Mr. Tohti and Mr. Masimov, the best thing we can do is to quickly adopt Motion No. 62 without playing partisan politics and support the proposal made by our colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

This is a good example of working together. The member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard did this great work together in committee.

What was the result?

The first request that is being made is to recognize that the Uighurs and other Muslim minorities from China emigrated in order to flee the Chinese government's repression and intimidation to force them to come back to China.

As members know, the House recognized the genocide in February 2021. There is therefore no doubt in the minds of most people, except perhaps the executive of the Liberal Party, that many Muslims are fleeing China to escape the brutal repression that extends well beyond China's borders.

A recent example of such repression is the police stations that China opened. There are three in Canada and about 50 around the world. China opened these illegal police stations without any kind of bilateral agreement in order to harass the diaspora and refugees to try to force them back to China, usually by threatening reprisal against their families if they do not. The people I was talking about earlier have experienced these types of threats.

China claims that these stations merely provide administrative services for Chinese nationals abroad, for example to renew a driver's licence. However, when abroad, that would be a consular activity, not a police activity. The Chinese government's subterfuge is clear. China also claims that it plans on repatriating Chinese nationals accused of corruption, but several documented cases of opponents being abducted prove that China aims to crack down on dissidents abroad.

The committee's second request is to recognize that many third countries are under pressure from China to repatriate Chinese dissidents and Muslims to China. In several neighbouring countries, such as Mongolia, which has no access to the sea and is 100% dependent on China and Russia for its exports and to maintain its economy, Uighur minorities are very vulnerable, as these countries sometimes bear the brunt of Chinese government pressure.

Many activists have been arrested in these third countries, including activists from Vietnam, Thailand and Uzbekistan. There is also the case of Uighur Canadian Huseyin Celil, who was arrested in Uzbekistan and sent to China, where he was sentenced to life in prison. As China does not recognize dual citizenship, he was not given access to consular information.

A 2019 Radio-Canada article painted a very clear picture of how China harasses Uighur nationals in Quebec using Chinese diplomatic services, which are often covers for sophisticated spying operations. We know that. It is public knowledge.

Canada is not immune to this pressure. In 2020, the House of Commons passed a motion calling on the federal government to adopt a plan to counter foreign interference, but once again, nothing was done.

The third request is that Canada take in 10,000 Chinese Uighur and Muslim refugees over a two-year period, beginning in 2024. Much like the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, I have to wonder why the limit is 10,000 refugees. Why not 20,000? It is a rather arbitrary number. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean committed to advancing the idea that we should take in 15,000 Uighur refugees. Uighur advocacy groups are clearly saying that 10,000 is not enough and more should be taken in, hence the idea of increasing it to 15,000.

I would point out that Canada already has programs for Afghans and for Ukrainians, so I do not see why it would not have the same kind of program for Uighurs. Some organizations have criticized Ottawa's favouritism for some nationals over others. For instance, Yemen is suffering terribly from armed conflict, but Ottawa has no specific program for the Yemeni people and is even selling arms to Saudi Arabia. Ironically, that country was lambasted in a UN report for its abuses in Yemen.

What we are really denouncing is the double standard, which is clearly the result of political decisions rather than humanitarian ones. I think this is where the problem lies, and perhaps why the member for Winnipeg North was annoyed earlier. Instead of showing some compassion, which is what the situation called for this evening, the member for Winnipeg North chose to indulge in political discussions.

The fact remains that Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims are being surveilled by China, which is not necessarily the case for Yemeni refugees in other countries.

Finally, the motion calls on the government to “table in the House, within 120 sitting days following the adoption of this motion, a report on how the refugee resettlement plan will be implemented”. As the Liberal government tends to ignore House of Commons motions, the Bloc Québécois believes it is necessary to require the government to table a report. We think the government must respond quickly to avoid the matter being put off indefinitely. That is what we find in the motion.

This evening as I was thinking about the Uighurs, I thought back to a book entitled De la dignité humaine, or on human dignity. It was written by my philosophy professor at Laval University, Thomas De Koninck, the wisest person I know. I think the worst thing we can do to a person is take away their dignity. Dr. De Koninck writes that every human being, whoever they may be, has their own inalienable dignity, in the unequivocal sense that Kant gave to this term: something that has no price and no equivalent, with no relative value, but rather an absolute value. The idea behind human dignity is that the individual has absolute value.

What we are hearing about the treatment of the Uighurs clearly shows that rather than having absolute value they are considered as objects. I can quickly talk about concentration camps. The Chinese Communist Party has set up concentration camps where the communists have held approximately two million Uighurs at one time or another. The number of cases has sharply increased over the years. These camps indoctrinate Muslims, who do not have the right to practice their religion or even speak their language. They are forced to eat pork. They must constantly praise the Chinese Communist Party and President Xi Jinping. Some witnesses have spoken about organ harvesting. Many women have been raped in these camps and have reported the sexual, psychological and physical abuse they experienced. Many women underwent forced sterilization. Children are separated from their families. Many children were taken away from their families and placed in orphanages or state-run schools. That includes children whose parents are in concentration camps as well as children whose family unit is intact. There is talk of slavery. Many Uighurs are taken from their homes or concentration camps and forcibly sent to factories located mainly outside Xinjiang, which further reduces the Muslim population. There is mass surveillance. China has the most advanced surveillance system in the world, particularly in Xinjiang. Cameras are installed practically everywhere, and new facial recognition technologies make it possible to identify Uighurs. Finally, the Chinese Communist Party spares no effort to poison the lives of the Uighurs to the extent that we can call it unbridled violence.

I would like to close by saying that what I have seen tonight from the member for Winnipeg North reflects how the House has dealt with the Uighur file for over two years now. The member for Winnipeg North came to say that now is not the time to debate this and that there are other priorities. This is similar to what his political party did when it came time to recognize the genocide, but the Liberals preferred to focus on Canada's economic and strategic interests in China, and that is unacceptable.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

The member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean is great to work with, and I agree with him. However, I do have a question for my colleague.

Does he have any concerns about whether IRCC can support these necessary measures? What can be done to ensure that Canada can respond adequately to this motion?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the best thing we can do is listen to the Uighurs themselves.

I think that what is proposed in this motion, namely to welcome 10,000 Uighurs over two years does not have the unanimous support of Uighurs themselves. They do not think that is enough. The best thing we can do is listen to them and shape our policies around their needs. We do not need more proof. A genocide has occurred in Xinjiang. That has been proven and we recognized that genocide here.

Now we need to take action, and what I have seen here tonight are not people who are prepared to take action, but rather people who want to use the situation of the Uighurs like any other issue to advance their political agendas. I will repeat what I said. I find that unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with the member's colleague from the Bloc on many of these issues. His colleague proposed the amendment. He talked about this in relation to an Olympic boycott, which was, I think, one potential way of the international community sending a strong signal. Unfortunately, that signal was not sent early enough with sufficient magnitude to achieve the result that his colleague and other members of this House were advocating for.

There are many different things we can do legislatively to push for justice for Uighurs. I really appreciated the speech given by another one of the Bloc member's colleagues on Bill C-281, which is an important international human rights piece of legislation. We have Bill S-211 and Bill S-223 as well, which are both before the foreign affairs committee and are unfortunately waiting to move forward. There are also the immigration measures, the concurrence motion and the motion to be debated later this week. There are many different things we can do.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the breadth of areas where Canada's Parliament could take action and on the fact that we can make a difference through the steps we take here in Canada's Parliament, even to impact injustices that are half a world away.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my introduction, I admitted that I felt a bit like an impostor since I did not follow the entire course of the work in committee. I was made aware of this political issue by my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean, who has made the Uighurs a prominent part of his work.

To answer my colleague's question, I think what we need to do is focus on humanitarian concerns. Unfortunately, in the case of the Uighurs, political, strategic and economic issues are sometimes put before humanitarian considerations. As responsible politicians, we cannot turn a blind eye to such atrocities in the hope of recovering some aspects of international trade, so as not to offend a giant like China. We cannot do that. It is an appalling lack of courage. If there is anything we can do here, it is perhaps to find some courage to stand up to China and defend the Uighurs in the dignified way they deserve.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for his speech. I would like to make a comment rather than ask a question.

This evening's debate brings two things to mind. I am a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. Of course, the committee talked about the Uighurs. The fact that this group of people is being subjected to modern slavery in this day and age disturbs me.

As the status of women critic, I will end on a much more personal note. As my colleague said, when women are being subjected to forced sterilization, that is a sure sign of a desire to annihilate a group of people. When things get to that point, economic considerations stop mattering and humanitarian considerations take over. That is our role as parliamentarians. It is our duty, as a member of the international community, to take action rather than merely express good intentions. It is time to take action.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. Before preparing this speech, a book that I used to make my students read came to mind. Entitled If This Is a Man, by Primo Levi, the book is about the Holocaust. Everyone who reads this short book by Primo Levi thinks to themselves, “never again”. What we read about in If This Is a Man by Primo Levi should never happen again.

Still, it seems to me that we have stooped to accepting what the Uighurs are currently experiencing. I do not understand why there is not more indignation about such miserable and violent living conditions that deprive these people of all their dignity. I believe that we need to collectively examine our priorities. Economic considerations ought not come before the dignity of people, no matter their religion or ethnicity.