SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 116 - Oct/24/22

Oct/24/22 7:12:44 p.m.
Watch

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.

158 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/24/22 7:12:53 p.m.
Watch

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.

109 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/24/22 7:13:46 p.m.
Watch

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.

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Oct/24/22 7:14:46 p.m.
Watch

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?

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/24/22 7:15:21 p.m.
Watch

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.

176 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Oct/24/22 7:16:17 p.m.
Watch

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—

83 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/24/22 7:16:53 p.m.
Watch

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.

32 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Oct/24/22 7:17:04 p.m.
Watch

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.

2611 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Oct/24/22 7:36:56 p.m.
Watch

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?

63 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

Oct/24/22 7:37:40 p.m.
Watch

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.

143 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Oct/24/22 7:38:42 p.m.
Watch

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.

226 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

Oct/24/22 7:40:09 p.m.
Watch

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.

164 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Oct/24/22 7:41:36 p.m.
Watch

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.

167 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

Oct/24/22 7:42:38 p.m.
Watch

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.

141 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Oct/24/22 7:44:01 p.m.
Watch

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.

181 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

Oct/24/22 7:45:23 p.m.
Watch

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.

117 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Oct/24/22 7:46:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-211

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.

2274 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)

Oct/24/22 8:02:32 p.m.
Watch

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?

159 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson

Oct/24/22 8:03:24 p.m.
Watch

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.

130 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Oct/24/22 8:04:29 p.m.
Watch

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.

372 words

All Topics