Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition) moved second reading of Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

He said: Honourable senators, today I rise to speak about Bill C-281, the international human rights act.

This bill was authored and introduced in the other place by my Conservative colleague Philip Lawrence who is the Member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South. I want to commend MP Lawrence for bringing this bill forward, and for his commitment to upholding human rights around the world. This bill will strengthen Canada’s ability to say that we are walking the talk on upholding and promoting human rights on a global scale — a cause that resonates to the core of our Canadian values.

Bill C-281 has several provisions, including amendments to the Sergei Magnitsky Law, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act and the Broadcasting Act. Each provision addresses a gap in Parliament’s ability to hold the government accountable in Canada’s defence of human rights around the world, a cause that I’m sure senators can agree transcends party lines and the government of the day.

Let me first speak to the amendment to the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, colloquially referred to as the Magnitsky Act. The Magnitsky Act equips our government with another tool to levy sanctions against human rights violators. However, I am disappointed to say that this tool has not been utilized as effectively as it could and should be, especially in recent years. Astonishingly, not a single entity or individual from China, for instance, has faced sanctions by Canada under the Magnitsky Act, despite repeated calls for such actions.

Take the situation in Hong Kong, a glaring example of why Bill C-281 is so necessary in today’s world. The ongoing human rights crackdown in Hong Kong, as senators know, continues despite repeated calls for the regime in Beijing to uphold its commitment to “one country, two systems.” We have seen ample evidence and many accounts of the situation on the ground in Hong Kong, but the current government has yet to lay sanctions on any official, whether it be a Hong Kong official or a PRC — People’s Republic of China — official. That’s despite many of those officials having ties to Canada, whether through property ownership, family members holding Canadian passports or having been educated here.

Simply put, no one has been held accountable by our country for the human rights abuses happening in Hong Kong.

What Bill C-281 seeks to do in amending the Magnitsky Act accomplishes two things: allowing parliamentary input and providing parliamentary oversight. Essentially, it will create a mechanism through which parliamentarians will be able to recommend foreign officials, like those involved in human rights violations in Hong Kong and other places in the world, to be included on sanctions lists.

That is something I had tried to do with my own bill amending the Magnitsky Act, but it can be done with this one instead. It is all the same to me.

Part of the rationale for this measure is that parliamentarians are in touch with human rights organizations and NGOs in a way that the ministers of the day might not be. It is therefore logical that parliamentarians should be able to recommend individuals for sanction to the minister.

It is important to note, however, that the minister is not obligated to comply with such recommendations. The minister remains free to accept or refuse those recommendations — and here is where the second part comes in — but they will have to provide an explanation why. It has been the tradition of this country that ministers are individually accountable to Parliament for their own actions and those of their department.

The amendment proposed in this bill will ensure that, within 40 days of either the House of Commons or Parliament passing a motion to sanction an individual or a group of individuals, Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, will have to report back to Parliament. This would enforce a greater and, I believe, more reasonable degree of accountability. If, in fact, either the Senate, the House of Commons or both have deemed that Magnitsky Act sanctions should be enforced, it is not unreasonable for Global Affairs Canada to come to a parliamentary committee and explain why they have determined otherwise.

To be abundantly clear, I want to reiterate that this amendment to the Magnitsky Act does not force GAC to take orders from Parliament regarding sanctioning. We, as parliamentarians, appreciate that there might be other considerations to be made in issuing such sanctions and do not want to be seen as impeding or interfering with the work of government.

As I said at the start, this amendment simply allows parliamentarians to have input and to be provided an explanation when that input is not acted upon. Colleagues, this isn’t about ego, a power struggle or some belief that parliamentarians know better than everyone else. I certainly do not believe so.

The author of this bill and I, as its sponsor in the Senate, genuinely believe that this measure of reporting and accountability will result in the sanctioning of more human rights abusers around the world in a more efficient and effective process. I think that’s everyone’s goal.

In the initial months after the Magnitsky Act came into force in Canada, we sanctioned a flurry of individuals in Myanmar, Russia and Venezuela. Since then, we have had very little activity from the government on that front. In fact, no one has been sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act since that initial flurry.

We want to put this reporting and accountability mechanism in place to encourage the government to utilize the tools it has to sanction those individuals who are committing the vilest of crimes and human rights atrocities around the world. If they aren’t utilizing those tools, we should know why so we can fix whatever needs to be fixed.

Another accountability provision in this legislation also places certain reporting requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs in relation to the work being done by our government in protecting international human rights, requiring the publication of a report outlining those activities. Initially, this provision called for the report to include the names and circumstances of individuals that the Canadian government and Global Affairs Canada are advocating for and working to get released.

However, to address concerns that such a disclosure could actually place some of these individuals or their families in harm’s way, an amendment was adopted at committee in the other place that gives the minister discretion regarding the disclosure of those names. The bill now states that the minister must make all reasonable efforts to consult with family members or representatives of the prisoners of conscience, and may decide not to include certain information in the list if a person consulted by the minister requests that the information not be included or the minister is satisfied that not including it would be in the best interests of the advancement of human rights or the personal safety of the prisoner.

That amendment was adopted in the spirit that, again, these reporting obligations are not in any way meant to restrict or obstruct GAC and the important work it does. Rather, it is designed to support the department.

We believe it will ensure that NGOs and the public will be better positioned to pressure governments around the world to release prisoners of conscience — people who are being held simply because of the beliefs and thoughts they have about the betterment of their countries. They are people who are fighting for human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

By raising public awareness in Canada and abroad about the incarceration and, sometimes, sadly, the torture of prisoners of conscience, we can give those people hope. More importantly, we can help drive out that evil, leading to the freedom of prisoners of conscience and advocates of democracy, women’s rights, LGBTQ2 rights and freedom.

The next provision of this bill restricts investments in companies that violate human rights or exploit developing nations with respect to cluster munitions. These provisions underscore our commitment to upholding international standards, our responsibility that we have previously passed on the matter and international treaties to which we are signatories.

Considering that the United States is not a signatory to the Dublin Convention and does, unfortunately, manufacture these types of weapons, there was a question raised in the other place about whether we would be running the risk of being lobbied by American weapons retailers to ensure that shareholders or people involved in those companies, for example, are not targeted by the bill. My colleague in the House, MP Philip Lawrence, responded with the following:

Political pressure has been shown to be incredibly powerful. Textron, which is one of the largest arms manufacturers located in the United States, stopped producing cluster munitions and specifically stated it was because of political pressure. Therefore, with things like this legislation, which would prevent the funding through Canadian businesses of cluster munitions, not only do we have a hard line in stopping them but we also continue to ramp up the political pressure. I would be glad to work alongside the member to stop the manufacturing of cluster munitions throughout the world.

That brings us to the fourth and final provision: empowering the government to ban state propaganda outlets that operate in Canada and spread disinformation, interfering in our public debate.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we saw RT, Russia’s state propaganda network, taken off Canadian airwaves. On March 16 of this year, the Government of Canada formally removed Russia Today and RT France from our airwaves on the basis that the distribution of those services were not in the public interest, as their content appears to constitute abusive comments or is likely to expose the Ukrainian people to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, or national or ethnic origin, and that their programming is antithetical to the achievement of the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

Russian propaganda has no place on Canadian airwaves. In fact, no state propaganda should have a place in the Canadian broadcast system at all. Senators may recall the controversies surrounding CGTN, Beijing’s state propaganda arm, with its denial of the Uyghur genocide and the broadcasting of forced confessions from dissidents.

The Broadcasting Act amendments in this legislation are crucial to align Canada with like-minded partners, such as the U.K., which banned CGTN in 2021. State propaganda that aims to spread disinformation is acting against Canadian interests. While I support the CRTC’s decision to pull those licences, they shouldn’t have had to take such a broad approach in doing so. There should have been a more straightforward mechanism put in place to support this. This bill would give the CRTC a specific tool to say that country X or Y is committing genocide and spreading its propaganda in our country and, therefore, loses its right to broadcast in Canada.

This amendment simplifies the matter for the regulator instead of requiring it to sort of gerrymander around existing rules. We believe this is a modest but necessary amendment that would allow the CRTC to protect vulnerable Canadians and fight against misinformation.

To conclude, Bill C-281, the international human rights act, is a step in the right direction. It won’t solve all problems, honourable senators, but it will add another tool to Parliament’s toolbox. Canada has historically had a strong commitment to upholding human rights around the world. The provisions in this bill allow us to make sure that these are not just words, but the very principles by which we stand. This bill gives parliamentarians tools to compel the government of the day to take action, and to hold it accountable for the actions it does take in upholding human rights around the world. This bill passed with unanimous consent in the House, supported by all parties, and I hope that it will also pass unanimously and in a timely fashion in this place. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Housakos: Absolutely.

Senator R. Patterson: This is specifically related to the “prohibiting cluster munitions” element of the act. I think this act is very supportable, but I am struck by our last speaker, who talked about our Ukrainian heritage and our support for Ukraine. While we understand that Canada will not use cluster munitions as part of how we move forward in defence, we are also supporting nations who are using cluster munitions, such as Ukraine.

How prescriptive is the act in terms of accountability provisions for those countries that do use cluster munitions? Right now, we have a bit of a balancing act to do. Thank you.

Senator Housakos: That is another very good question, senator. Canada, as you know, is a signatory to a number of treaties, particularly the Dublin treaty. We have no time for cluster munitions. We recognize that when countries enter a time of war, sometimes you even have signatories to these conventions that take drastic steps. We can get into a debate about how justified this is at various times; I’m always of the opinion that war and violence are never justified, except in self‑defence. If someone attacks my home, family and people, with all due respect to treaties and other commitments we have, all bets are off.

These are case-by-case decisions for our government and our Parliament when it comes to those particular times. You are absolutely right — we trade economically and have allies around the world who are not always completely aligned with us on everything. Cluster munitions is one of them. As we know, our largest trading partner and strongest political ally has engaged in constructing, building and selling them. I believe what this bill does is reinforce in our bilateral relationship with them that this is not something that we will tolerate. We won’t tolerate being pressured into reversing our position, and my understanding and sense is that, hopefully, it will help reinforce those on the other side of the border of the forty-ninth parallel who are of the view that the Americans can defend themselves in an appropriate fashion without using this hugely destructive tool in the art of war. There are many weapons in the art of war that can be used in self-defence, and, for that matter, in offensive operations as well.

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Nunavut), debate adjourned.)

On Other Business, Reports of Committees, Other, Order No. 40, by the Honourable Bernadette Clement:

Consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, entitled Hydrogen: A Viable Option for a Net‑Zero Canada in 2050?, tabled in the Senate on May 9, 2023.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Lankin, for both of those questions. They are very important. You’re absolutely right — when you’re dealing with questions of intelligence and national security, there are things that we’re not privy to as parliamentarians, nor should we be. That’s why this bill is not prescriptive in that regard. It was amended to make sure ministers have the flexibility to be able to work within the confines of the information that they have.

Of course, I can go on and we can have a whole debate about our intelligence and security structure. You know very well from the position you sit in how efficient, agile, open and transparent it is. These are not easy solutions to resolve in a debate on the floor, but I hope they will be resolved because I believe they are causing challenges. We have seen far too often members of Parliament who are part of the executive branch and seem to not obtain certain information in a timely fashion, as they should have. That’s another debate for another time.

I think the bill is non-prescriptive. It gives full flexibility to the minister to share whatever information they want to share when they appear before a parliamentary committee, and they won’t be bound by recommendations from parliamentarians. What I think they will have is another intelligence source, because parliamentarians, especially those interested in human rights, work with various NGOs. We work with parliament-to-parliament relationships with democracies around the world, and also with countries that fall on the list of less democratic or, in some cases, even rogue countries. Even those parliamentarians in this chamber and in the House will be able to provide, I hope, added value and intelligence to the executive branch of government.

As you know from our debates on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, I am a hawk on freedom of speech and not censoring any opinions, but even I believe there comes a point in time when we have to draw a line in the sand. That includes when we’re dealing with countries that are not aligned with our values, or with blatantly undemocratic tyrants who are trampling all over rights, privileges and democracy in their own countries. I’ll name some of those countries: China, Iran — Russia, of course, is right up there. I could go on. There comes a point in time when we say that enough is enough. When we see that they engage in deliberate cyberattacks and infiltration to gain influence over our economies, intellectual properties and institutions, we have to make those collective decisions, even though they go against unfettered freedom of expression. Of course, we have to do it in a diligent fashion.

Even in these latest updated amendments made to the Broadcasting Act, we took deliberate steps to try to create a framework for what the CRTC will find acceptable or not acceptable for Canadians to post and read. I don’t want to relitigate that debate, but we did not address what I believe is a far more serious issue — giving the CRTC the tools to act diligently and with the speed required to combat the misinformation coming from these rogue nations.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Government leader, no one is questioning the validity of a grocery rebate at a time when this government has created or helped create such great inflation, and Canadians are suffering, but we have seen time and time again in this place that when you pass legislation with all the best intent in the world that legislation isn’t clear and transparent in giving directives to those that are going to apply this particular bill and apply this particular program with clear regulations.

We are just asking if it wouldn’t make sense to have some regulations and guidelines to make sure that all these billions of dollars would go to a grocery rebate and not to a hardware store rebate.

And there is nothing wrong for people in need who might need tools, Senator Cardozo, but there is something wrong when you take a government program, and then it is used, for example, to go on a vacation or to buy accessories for an automobile or to buy sporting goods, for example, for entertainment and sports reasons.

Would the government leader agree that we need to attach to the title of this bill clear guidance to make sure that all the money goes for grocery rebates and nothing else?

Senator Housakos: We’ve seen that before.

Hon. Leo Housakos moved second reading of Bill S-247, An Act to amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material).

Hon. Leo Housakos: I request that further debate be adjourned in my name for the balance of my time.

Senator Housakos: Yes, I did.

Senator Housakos: Senator Woo, I can tell you that your op‑ed and comments over the last while have garnered enough attention without me having to draw any attention to them.

Where we fundamentally differ on in this debate is that China is a tyrannical state. It’s unfortunate that a member of the upper chamber doesn’t recognize that. We don’t recognize that what happened in Tiananmen Square as an accident. It was tyranny. What is going on with the Uighur people is tyranny. It is something that is recognized around the world, including our own Parliament, and it is shameful that we didn’t recognize it in this chamber.

To stand up and say that you take exception to the comments of me referring to the administration and the regime in China as tyrannical is in itself outrageous.

The United Front is just one example of an organization operating in Canada funded directly to uphold the principles of that tyrannical regime. Organizations like Huawei are state funded. They’re international multinationals that have been recognized by organizations like CSIS and the RCMP in engaging in security espionage right here in our country.

We’ve had these organizations. Our security forces tell parliamentary committees that we need to take action and do something about it. I find it outrageous that a parliamentarian questions the veracity of that information and questions the veracity of where we are vis-à-vis a democracy and the Republic of China.

Senator Housakos: Any entity that is connected to this tyrannical regime in Beijing would be covered, yes. The answer is yes. I’m not hiding from that reality. If you have a Chinese, state-owned and operated institution in Canada, yes, it would fall under this bill, as it should.

Senator Housakos: Absolutely.

Senator Housakos: You’re using an extreme case, Senator Woo. We’re not talking about holding accountable people who are promoting cultural exchanges. I can tell you that the Chinese community in Canada does not need any help from the Chinese republic in order to promote Chinese culture and Canadian-Chinese culture. They can do it on their own very well.

That is not at all the essence of this bill. The essence of this bill is very simple. When you have organizations that are funded directly by Beijing, which are here promoting the agenda of that tyrannical organization to government agencies, to our institutions — particularly in commerce, trade, science, technology, energy sectors — those are the ones that are of serious concern when it comes to dealing with this issue, Senator Woo.

Trying to muddy the waters and justify the unjustifiable isn’t right and isn’t appropriate.

Senator Housakos: Senator Woo, my answer is very clear. If you have any organizations funded by Beijing that are active on Canadian soil, they are going to be obligated to register. Absolutely. That’s what this bill is saying. I’m not disagreeing with it. That’s really the objective of the bill at the end of the day. However, it doesn’t target Canadian-Chinese cultural organizations that are active on Canadian soil.

My point is exactly that. We do not need Beijing and their money in order to be infiltrating Canadian-Chinese cultural organizations. That is precisely part of the point and part of this exercise we’re going through. Beijing should be worrying about promoting their own cultural activities at home as we are preoccupied with promoting our own cultural and multicultural activities in Canada with our Canadian citizens. That’s really the objective of this bill. I don’t see where you’re lacking an answer to your question.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition) moved second reading of Bill S-237, An Act to establish the Foreign Influence Registry and to amend the Criminal Code.

He said: Honourable senators, it is very apropos that after all the questions regarding foreign influence on the debate on Bill S-233 and the good questions from Senator Kutcher, I will be dealing with it a little more, regarding an issue in terms of foreign influence in our institutions. There are many ways that foreign entities can influence our institutions and our country.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-237, which would amend Canada’s Criminal Code and establish a foreign registry for entities and individuals who seek to influence Canadian policy and Canada’s democratic institutions and processes on behalf of identified foreign regimes.

Foreign interference and influence are not new, but with the advancement of technology and information sharing, it is becoming more pervasive and is likely being used as a tool by authoritarian regimes. In this regard, the occurrence is increasing and thus making it a growing threat. Canada’s intelligence agencies have long been warning about this threat of malign foreign influence toward our democracy and our society. Several reports have outlined these warnings, including the 2019 CSIS Public Report, released on May 20, 2020, and the 2019 Annual Report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

The 2019 CSIS report states that espionage and foreign-influence activities are directed at Canadian entities both inside and outside Canada and are direct threats to Canada’s national security and strategic interests.

It goes on to warn of the vulnerability of democratic institutions and processes, including our elections. Furthermore, according to a hot issue note prepared for a March 24, 2021, committee appearance by then Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair:

Through its mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada, CSIS has seen multiple instances of foreign states targeting Canadian institutions and communities. The scope of potential foreign interference activities can be broad, encompassing a range of techniques that are familiar to intelligence agencies. These include: human intelligence operations, the use of state-sponsored or foreign influenced media, and the use of sophisticated cyber tools.

Honourable senators, we have all witnessed and many of us have voiced concerns about the impacts of foreign interference and influence on our democracy and our foreign and domestic policy. This is not a partisan issue. On the contrary. The truth is, if we don’t start addressing it in a meaningful way, it will absolutely erode public trust in our elected officials and our processes and institutions.

I know there certainly was a lot of talk about foreign involvement in the recent “Freedom Convoy,” in particular about foreign financing, something that was not actually borne out during committee hearings in the other place.

Some have also expressed concern about foreign involvement and funding of other protests, including all manner of illegal blockades in Canada. Leaving aside the particular political agendas of different activist groups, I know from the tweets and public statements of many of my colleagues, the issues of foreign interference and influence concerns you as much as it does those of us on this side of the chamber. I hope that means, in addition to your always thoughtful reflection on all legislation that comes before this chamber, that I can also count on our support for this particular bill as it seeks to remedy something for which we’ve all expressed concern.

Foreign interference and influence are real, and it is very much happening right here in Canada. In many cases, it is financial and, in other cases, it comes in the form of disinformation; sometimes both. In the worst cases, those acting on behalf of foreign regimes have intimidated and even threatened Canadians and others on Canadian soil or threatened their loved ones back home in order to silence them or influence their actions, including how they vote in our elections. While we already have laws in Canada to deal with some aspects of these coercive actions, such as removal of persons by the Canada Border Services Agency and penalties under the Canada Elections Act, far more can and should be done.

And, no, the answer isn’t in chipping away at our freedoms and democratic processes and institutions by ourselves. The last thing we should do to fight foreign disinformation, for example, is to limit free speech. That is not to say we shouldn’t reject the promulgation of foreign propaganda from our airwaves, as we did recently with Russian state-controlled broadcaster RT, formerly Russia Today. But that is a very different beast than censorship of our own citizens. We should not seek to emulate the tyrannical regimes against which we are attempting to guard by silencing our own citizens.

That is why I was troubled to learn of Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly’s comments during a house committee last week in which she testified regarding foreign propaganda:

My mandate as foreign minister is really to counter propaganda online. Social media companies need to do more. They need to make sure that they recognize that states have jurisdiction over them, that they’re not technology platforms, that they’re content producers. And it is our way collectively to make sure that we can really be able to have strong democracies in the future because this war is being fought with 21st-century tools, including social media.

Colleagues, while I’m happy to hear this government express concern over foreign interference, I am less than comforted by Minister Joly’s comments. The first job of any foreign minister is to defend the national interest and the values we hold as Canadians, which include free speech. So I repeat: The answer to combatting foreign interference isn’t to censor our own citizens. Instead, the foreign influence registry and accountability act will force greater transparency by exposing those who do seek to influence, on behalf of foreign regimes, our policies, public debate and decision making.

By identifying those acting in the interests of a foreign entity rather than in Canada’s interests, we introduce a measure of accountability for both those agents and the officials who receive them. Why shouldn’t we have such a registry? Do Canadians not deserve to know who is lobbying their public officials on behalf of foreign entities?

This is no different, really, than the lobbyist registry. The Lobbying Act recognizes that free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest and that lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity. The registry proposed by this bill is no different. It recognizes that lobbying by foreign entities and individuals as a matter of public interest and benefit to Canada is a legitimate activity. However, the Lobbying Act also recognizes that Canadians and even public office holders themselves should be able to know who is engaged in these lobbying activities. The very same can and should be said about those lobbying public office holders on behalf of foreign entities.

I would argue that, on that principle alone, this legislation should be passed without hesitation. Colleagues, transparency, openness and public accountability are vital elements in Canada’s democracy process. We shouldn’t abandon those principles in our efforts to combat foreign interference in our affairs.

This bill does just that. For those are of you unconvinced of the need for such a registry, and others who will make the argument that this legislation and any such registry would or is meant to target one particular entity or one particular group of people, allow me to further make my case.

From the Government of Canada’s own website — again, from that hot issue note prepared for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s then Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair’s appearance at committee — I quote:

Threats to Canada’s national security, such as foreign interference and espionage can harm multiple areas of our society. They can have impacts on our democratic processes, our economic prosperity, our critical infrastructure, and even members of our communities.

It goes on to say:

CSIS has observed persistent and sophisticated state-sponsored threat activity for many years now and they continue to see a rise in the frequency and sophistication of this threat activity.

This note, available to read on the Government of Canada’s Public Safety website goes on to describe the nature of these activities. It states:

Canada has observed state-sponsored information manipulation employed by certain regimes aimed at reshaping or undermining the rules-based-international order. These states are manipulating information, including employing disinformation, to sow doubt . . . discredit democratic responses . . . and erode confidence in values of democracy and human rights.

It is important to note that disinformation, originating from anywhere in the world, can have serious consequences including threats to the safety and security of Canadians, erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, and confusion about government policies and notices . . . . State-sponsored disinformation campaigns are an example of foreign interference.

Honourable senators, some of that was in reference to our response to COVID-19, but CSIS does equally warn of the threat more broadly. In an effort to counter foreign interference in the 2019 federal election, the government created the SITE Task Force, which stands for Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections. So concerned was our government with electoral interference that they did this.

It’s not good enough to only be concerned with this when you think it negatively affects your chosen outcome. We have heard a lot about alleged Russian collusion with or in favour of Donald Trump in the United States, but the issue of foreign interference is much broader. What I believe we face is a deeper systemic challenge related to foreign interference by authoritarian states.

We need look no further here in Canada than what happened in our most recent federal election with, amongst others, the author of this bill, the bill’s predecessor and former member of Parliament Kenny Chiu. Mr. Chiu lost his seat in the 2021 election in large part because of a disinformation campaign about his bill — a disinformation campaign that was clearly linked to a foreign power. Writing in the journal Policy Options in January, Sze-Fung Lee and Benjamin Fung noted that the tactics used against Mr. Chiu were indicative of foreign interference, and said, “. . . these tactics could be deployed against any group in an information and psychological warfare campaign.” Imagine — Mr. Chiu introduced legislation aimed at curbing the very thing to which he fell victim.

Elaborating on their findings, Ms. Lee and Mr. Fung noted that the use of fake news is widespread in diaspora communities via social media apps like WeChat and WhatsApp. They point to research that indicates people tend to accept misinformation as fact if it comes from a credible and trustworthy source, and that feelings of “trust” can also be based on feelings of familiarity. Ms. Lee and Mr. Fung write:

The reliance on internet information often results in the creation of an “echo chamber” that is further exacerbated by the filter effect of the online algorithm. Applications such as the “WeChat Moment,” a feature in WeChat, which is widely used by the Chinese community, similar to Facebook and Instagram, allow individuals to view others’ stories. Thus, the Chinese community is being trapped in the vicious cycle of reinforced information consumption patterns.

The authors of this article highlight that Beijing was able to use Mr. Chiu’s pro-democracy, anti-communism activism and his vocal criticism of Beijing’s atrocious human rights record to depict him and his bill as radically discriminatory against the Chinese. They were successful in categorizing the bill’s primary objective as being one of suppressing pro-China opinion, and perhaps most troubling to many in the Chinese diaspora community, as a means to surveil organizations and individuals in the community right here in Canada.

Honourable senators, we will never know if this campaign of disinformation alone is what ultimately cost Mr. Chiu his seat in the Greater Vancouver area, but there is no denying that it occurred and that it at least, in some part, played a role or very well could have played a role in him losing his seat. That’s cause enough for concern. Whether it was the primary cause of Mr. Chiu’s defeat or not is immaterial to the fact that we must take steps to ensure against it happening in the first place to Mr. Chiu or anyone else.

Our colleague Senator Woo will no doubt take just as much exception to this bill as he did with Mr. Chiu’s original bill. Senator Woo has been quite vocal in questioning the validity of the argument of foreign interference. He has asserted that the attacks on Mr. Chiu may simply have been indicative of a debate within the Chinese community. In his opinion piece in Policy Options from January of this year, our colleague Senator Woo takes issue with the idea behind Mr. Chiu’s bill because “many Chinese entities . . . could theoretically be subject to direction from the Chinese state,” because they operate from the territory of that authoritarian state. Well, yes, Senator Woo; that is precisely the point. The reality is that in an authoritarian system, an entity that is based on such a state could indeed be acting as an instrument of that state.

In my view, just because the investigation and management of this problem is complicated by the web of influence and control that an authoritarian state possesses, it does not mean that we should not take action to protect ourselves. I would argue that regardless of the challenges, it is imperative that we take action. And no, that does not mean that Mr. Chiu’s legislation or mine is an attempt to single out any one group of people. I think it is highly irresponsible and dangerous for anyone, much less a holder of high public office, to make such a claim.

An example of the disinformation campaign that was perpetrated on Mr. Chiu comes from a WeChat post claiming that this bill’s predecessor would have had extremely negative consequences for immigrants from mainland China. It claimed, quite obviously falsely, that the bill would automatically harm economic, cultural and technological exchanges between Canada and China. The post goes on to claim that because the bill was undoubtedly targeting mainland Chinese associations. Perhaps the most egregious of the claims about this bill was that the bill aims to control and monitor mainland China’s speech and behaviour. Honourable senators, that’s just ludicrous and ridiculous. I think all of us here can understand just how ridiculous it is.

Unfortunately, Senator Woo reiterated and attempted to further legitimize this false narrative in his opinion piece, going so far as to suggest that exchanges between a Canadian member of a Chinese cultural group and a senator may be subject to a registry. Honourable senators, that is an absolute misrepresentation of the purpose of this bill and also a misrepresentation as to what a registry would look like in practice.

This bill is not attempting to target or single out China or Canada’s Chinese diaspora; far from it. What this bill is about is understanding the nature of foreign involvement and potential interference by authoritarian regimes in Canada. I believe that we must take the steps needed to try to better understand and address the challenges represented by such entities in our nation. Nobody, least of all yours truly, is suggesting that foreign interference in our democratic institutions, policies and processes is limited to just one actor; far from it.

The communist regime of China is just one example of a state that is most certainly engaged in such practices. It’s well known and understood. It’s accepted and recognized. I’ve also mentioned Russia. We can’t observe what occurred in the United States and then claim that we are somehow immune to the same influence and interference.

In the lead-up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there is no question that information warfare played a key part in Russia’s state strategy. Part of that campaign has been to manipulate and shape international opinion. In this regard, we need to understand that Russia’s intervention in Ukraine did not begin in 2022, it began years earlier, and Russia’s parallel disinformation campaign has been an integral element of Russian state strategy.

If we’re speaking about Russia, we must also consider Iran. According to a study out of Simon Fraser University’s School of Communication, Russia and Iran appear to have been the most active in targeting Canada with disinformation.

Simon Fraser professor Ahmed Al-Rawi bases his arguments to this effect on analysis he has carried out of tweets, identified by Twitter as coming from Russian and Iranian state actors. These were posted between 2010 and 2019. Professor Al-Rawi calls the campaign of disinformation repeated and systematic.

In a Toronto Star article last year discussing the study, Professor Al-Rawi said that he had seen tweets by Iranian trolls written in French falsely linking former prime minister Stephen Harper to ISIS ahead of the 2019 election. He’d also seen Russian trolls falsely suggesting that the man who killed six people in a Quebec City mosque in 2017 is innocent. Then, there are the memes of Justin Trudeau — hundreds of them, the Toronto Star points out — that the author describes as sexist and include images using Photoshop of the Prime Minister “wearing headscarves paired with Islamophobic messaging.”

Professor Al-Rawi calls this “microtargeting,” and its objective is to sow division in Canadian society and to mobilize certain groups. In some instances, these tweets promoted certain positions about events that were happening outside Canada, including some as early as in 2014 at the time of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. We continue to see such campaigns, now related to disinformation around the invasion of Ukraine.

Honourable senators, this is not a partisan issue. This is a matter that should be of grave concern to us all, both as parliamentarians and as Canadians. However, it’s not just disinformation with which we need to be concerned. Members of various diaspora communities here in Canada have anecdotal evidence of overt threats and attempts at intimidation being carried out within their communities. The objective has been to dissuade people from voting, speaking out against a regime or being activists, which we take for granted in our democracy.

Canadians are often threatened — not only their own safety but also the safety of loved ones back home in order to achieve the desired effect. Activists for human rights are told that if they continue to speak out their parents, brother or sister back home will pay the price. These aren’t idle threats, colleagues. Often, the message is delivered or reinforced through a phone call with their loved one who may have just received a visit from the authorities.

Rukiye Turdush, a Canadian Uighur activist, described Chinese police making videos of their visits that could then be played for their Canadian relatives.

They’re not even covert about it anymore. They’re very overt, as we recently saw with the threats against the Chief Executive of Hong Kong Watch, Benedict Rogers. Using the draconian national security law, Mr. Rogers was threatened with a large fine and imprisonment by Chinese authorities because of his activism against the Communist regime and standing up for the people of Hong Kong. If they’re that brazen with someone who has such a high public profile, colleagues, imagine the tactics and threats they employ against others.

Other countries engage in similar practices. Take the case of Javad Soleimani. Mr. Soleimani’s wife was among the 85 Canadian citizens and permanent residents who were murdered on January 8, 2020, by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, when they indiscriminately and unapologetically shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752. After speaking out about the murder of his wife and so many others by the IRGC, Mr. Soleimani started receiving messages stating that the IRGC was aware of his activities, that they could target him anywhere and that he had better be careful. Imagine facing those kinds of threats and intimidation on Canadian soil. Mr. Soleimani reported the incidents to police, but says not enough has been done to alleviate the growing fears of Iranian Canadians.

Mr. Soleimani told a media conference in late 2020:

One day Canada was the safest place for all of us to live, but currently it’s not at all safe.

From that same press conference, The Canadian Press detailed the story of Chemi Lhamo, a University of Toronto student who recalled a harrowing tale of harassment to which she was subjected when she ran for student government in 2019. Ms. Lhamo spoke of the thousands of messages she received that included threats of rape and murder directed at her and her loved ones. Ms. Lhamo brought these messages, as well as reports of being followed on campus, to various law enforcement agencies, including the campus police, Toronto police, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian Security Intelligence Service. As Ms. Lhamo stated:

Ultimately, I still do not have a physical piece of paper that says, here’s a report that we did, or here is the information on the people that have been threatening to kill you on Canadian soil.

Honourable senators, this is happening right here on Canadian soil to Canadian citizens. It’s happening in our communities, on our university campuses and throughout our institutions. We must do something to address it.

Colleagues, I don’t profess that this bill is a cure-all. However, in terms of seeking to better catalogue foreign attempts to influence our political leaders and our institutions, I believe that it can be an important first step. It also builds on what was proposed by former MP Chiu and incorporates an amendment to the Criminal Code that also strengthens our ability to hold accountable those who do not respect our laws and, indeed, our democratic system.

What this bill does not do, colleagues, is target one group of people or new Canadians coming to this country. New Canadians are looking for a better life. They are often looking to leave behind the oppression that was endemic in the country they left. They are looking to ensure the oppression they left behind does not follow them to these shores. In that regard, this bill seeks to ensure that everyone in Canada can pursue their dreams and live their lives free from threats and intimidation.

This bill has widespread support from Canadians. A Nanos Research poll conducted last year showed that 88% of Canadians surveyed supported the passage of a foreign agent registration act to combat foreign influence. The call for a foreign agent registry also comes from a wide array of civil society and community groups, including Canada-Hong Kong Link, The Central and Eastern European Council in Canada, Saskatchewan Stands with Hong Kong, Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project, Vancouver Society in Support of Democratic Movement and the Council of Iranian Canadians.

Honourable senators, at a time when all the world’s democracies face an unprecedented threat, Canada must take firm measures, similar to the legislation that has already been enacted by many of our democratic allies, such as Australia and the United States. This bill will provide transparency and give us an important tool to better protect our democratic order against attempts being made to potentially subvert that same order.

I strongly urge you to support this bill in order to strengthen and protect our democracy, our democratic institutions and our freedom. Thank you.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Lankin. The primary role of this bill is simple. There are organizations that are state sponsored — or connected with some of these tyrannical and authoritarian regimes around the world — operating in Canada, and many are directly and indirectly subsidized. They work under the veil of being intellectual institutions or research centres, and often they’re not even veiled. They’re state-run, multinational corporations that are directly affiliated with some of these authoritarian regimes. This registry simply states that any time one of these organizations, entities or corporations act to influence government officials — MPs, senators or senior bureaucrats — to sway public policy or to intimidate, directly or indirectly, office-holders or Canadian citizens, they would face the full thrust of the law.

Of course, this bill also amends the Criminal Code, adding some stiff financial penalties and jail terms for those who are found guilty of breaking the law in this particular case.

Is there any weakness in this bill? I don’t think there is. As we all know, laws are fluid in this country. We put them forward with the best of intentions, and I believe this will be a great first giant step forward. We will become more vigilant, because the number one challenge facing all democracies, including Canada, is authoritarianism around the world. Unfortunately, with countries like China, Iran and Russia, we have evidence to show that they’re very active right now within our borders, within various institutions, and according to reports we have to take action.

Quite frankly, I think this is the first giant step forward. It’s badly needed and would be the right thing to do at this juncture.

Senator Housakos: I have looked at the Australian model. I find it is a lot more rigid than what we’re proposing over here. Again, I did not want to go outside of the realm of public office‑holders and public officials in this particular instance. I’m very cognizant of the fact that I don’t want to infringe upon the private life of corporations and other entities in Canada. There’s always a fine line. Is it something that we can look at? Do we want to strengthen it up to the point where we hold people accountable once they leave public office? I’m not averse to those kinds of suggestions, amendments and changes as we go along.

Clearly, we have a problem — based on the reports we’ve seen from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and our intelligence services — and we are being infiltrated at the highest levels in our institutions right now. This would be the first step, and as we go along we need to continue to be vigilant. As we also know, it doesn’t address cyber and social web influence, which is very powerful.

I think this is very concrete and specific. It deals with entities that are affiliated with these totalitarian regimes that are very often trying to influence our public institutions and our public Crown corporations in various other sectors.

Senator Housakos: Absolutely.

Hon. Leo Housakos moved second reading of Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff (goods from Xinjiang).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.

This bill is very straightforward. It seeks to amend the Customs Tariff Act to prohibit the importation of any and all goods produced in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China.

Some of you may be asking why I’m proposing this be done by the Parliament of Canada; others may wonder if it’s necessary given current law; and others may wonder about retaliation, so I would like to address each and every one of those issues.

First, why am I proposing this ban? The answer is simple — because of the mounting evidence that a genocide is being committed in that region by the Communist Party of China, and it’s being committed for no reason other than the people indigenous to the region are Muslims. They’re being raped, enslaved, tortured and murdered because they’re Muslim, full stop.

Integrated with this genocide is incontrovertible evidence that hundreds of thousands — perhaps up to 1 million — members of the Uighur minority are being compelled to engage in forced labour for the benefit of the Communist authorities and for the benefit of businesses that are implicated in this activity.

In my view, by not taking action, by remaining silent, we are being complicit — even if inadvertently — in the face of this outcry, and that is not who we are as Canadians. This bill is necessary to single out and further expose what may be the most serious violation of human rights occurring in our world today.

I will begin by quoting from only a few of the many eye witnesses testifying to what has been happening in Xinjiang.

Rukiye Turdush is a Canadian citizen who emigrated from China to Canada in the 1990s. She has testified that her brother was killed by Chinese soldiers in 1992, and she has talked about the brave decision she took to leave China in the 1990s. She has spoken about being expelled at gunpoint with her baby from her Beijing hotel room for no other reason than because she was a Uighur.

She has spoken openly about the continued harassment she has experienced, even here in Canada, at the hands of those who are in the service of, or supportive of, Chinese Communist authorities.

She has been harassed because of what she has dared to say about the repression that has accelerated since 2017, and I quote:

Since 2017 [the Chinese government] started to arrest everyone in East Turkestan [otherwise known as Xinjiang] . . . I asked my dad, how many of them are inside, and he said, you have to count how many are outside, because all of them are inside.

Mrs. Turdush’s accounts are hardly unique.

The BBC has reported accounts of systematic rape and torture in those camps, and countless reports of rape and sexual abuse have been catalogued by human rights organizations.

Canada’s own former minister of justice and attorney general, Irwin Cotler, has argued that in his view the Peoples Republic of China has committed every one of the five acts found in the United Nations Genocide Convention. Mr. Cotler stated:

Uyghurs suffer unlivable conditions, torture, and sexual violence inside the camps, and are subjected to institutionalized enslavement across China. Since 2017, the Chinese government has forcibly transferred Uyghur children — many of them ‘orphaned’ as a result of losing both parents to internment or forced labour — to a network of state-run facilities in Han Chinese settings.

In other words, the minority population is in the forced service of China’s ethnic majority.

Mr. Cotler further states:

The government is simultaneously subjecting Uyghurs to systematic mass forced sterilization and coercive birth‑prevention policies, destroying the group’s reproductive capacity.

. . . Senior officials have issued orders to “eradicate tumors,” “round up everyone,” “wipe them out completely” . . . .

Other Canadians have also witnessed first-hand what is going on in Xinjiang.

[Translation]

Canadians Gary and Andrea Dyck lived in the Xinjiang region from 2007 to 2018. They told Agence France-Presse what they saw when they arrived in China.

They noted that the traditional Uighur neighbourhoods had started to be dismantled and residents were being relocated to buildings far from their communities — and then the measures started to escalate. The couple said that in 2016 there was an increase in police presence, with checkpoints at all major intersections and more security cameras in the cities.

[English]

They personally saw the internment camps being built. Gary Dyck stated:

As the camps were being built, and people were being taken away months later, there was no pushback, there was no fight because there was so much security and they were overwhelmed as a people.

One detention centre was built close to their home. They described it as having a wall 15 feet high, topped with barbed wire and monitored by security cameras as well as guard patrols.

Gary said:

A few of our (then) 15-year-old son’s friends were turning 18 soon, and they were fearful because they would be legal age and they were wondering if they were going to be taken to these camps next, and so they were actually dreading turning 18.

Where (else) in the world does a 17-year-old dread turning 18?

We just felt we were living in a huge penitentiary.

I very much regret to say, colleagues, that the body of evidence supporting this very disturbing assertion is considerable.

I want to quote from what international human rights organizations, who have been cataloguing the witnesses’ testimony, have told us. Last June, Amnesty International released a 160-page report on the scope of the repression. That report concluded:

Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region face systematic state-organized mass imprisonment, torture and persecution amounting to crimes against humanity . . .

Other research work carried out by Human Rights Watch, together with Stanford University’s Law School, found that the Chinese government has committed — and continues to commit — crimes against humanity against the Turkic Muslim people. Human Rights Watch noted that under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, ICC, crimes against humanity:

. . . serious specified offenses that are knowingly committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population.

Crimes against humanity are considered among the gravest human rights abuses under international law. The specific crimes against humanity documented in this report include imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty in violation of international law; persecution of an identifiable ethnic or religious group; enforced disappearance; torture; murder; and alleged inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to mental or physical health, notably forced labor and sexual violence.

Here in Canada, in 2021 the NGO Above Ground published a study on forced labour around the world. As part of its study, it found that in Xinjiang Chinese communist authorities have sent:

. . . hundreds of thousands of the region’s Uyghurs and other Turkic ethnic minorities, who are predominantly Muslim, to detention camps to have their thoughts “transformed.” Survivors of camps report being kept in crowded dorms, deprived of food, forbidden from praying or speaking their language, and harshly punished for transgressions.

The study noted that Chinese authorities have also allegedly:

. . . transferred hundreds of thousands of ethnic minority citizens, including former detainees, into involuntary work placements across China.

The workers are said to have little choice but to comply given the ever-present threat of extrajudicial detention.

Also, last year, the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights released a report by more than 50 independent global experts in international law. The report concluded:

. . . the People’s Republic of China . . . bears state responsibility for committing genocide against the Uyghurs, in breach of the Genocide Convention.

Colleagues, democratic states and international organizations are taking note of these reports. Last June, the White House issued the following statement:

. . . The United States believes that state-sponsored forced labour in Xinjiang is both an affront to human dignity and an example of the PRC’s unfair economic practices. The PRC’s use of forced labour in Xinjiang is an integral part of its systematic abuses against the Uyghur population and other ethnic and religious minority groups, and addressing these abuses will remain a high priority for the Biden-Harris administration. These systematic abuses go beyond forced labour to include sexual violence and large-scale detentions, and the PRC continues to commit genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang.

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in turn, has stated the following in relation to the position of the British Government:

We are seriously concerned about the widespread and systematic human rights violations in Xinjiang. These violations include — but are not limited to — the extrajudicial internment of over 1 million Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities; severe restrictions on culture, religion and language; pervasive surveillance and monitoring; the use of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities as forced labour; and the enforcement of birth prevention policies.

Evidence of gross human rights violations and extra-judicial detention and forced labour has been growing, including leaks of China’s own classified internal documents.

Colleagues, a December 2020 Resolution by the European Parliament states:

. . . the suffering of the Uyghurs also extends to the younger generation . . . young children have been sent to state-run orphanages even if only one of their parents has been detained in the internment camps . . . by the end of 2019, over 880,000 Uyghur children had been placed in boarding facilities . . .

[Translation]

The resolution of the European Parliament also emphasizes the Orwellian nature of the Chinese government’s surveillance measures, namely, and I quote:

 . . . measures to ensure the ‘comprehensive supervision’ of Xianjiang through the installation of Skynet electronic surveillance in major urban areas and GPS trackers in all motor vehicles, the use of facial recognition scanners at checkpoints and train and petrol stations, using software based on artificial intelligence camera systems aimed at identifying Uyghurs and other members of ethnic minority groups . . .

Finally, I would like to mention a statement issued this June by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the findings of human rights experts. It referred directly to, and I quote:

 . . . exploitative working and abusive living conditions that may constitute arbitrary detention, human trafficking, forced labour and enslavement by the use of forced labour.

It also recognized the following, and I quote:

 . . . hundreds of thousands of members of the Uyghur minority have been held in “re-education” facilities. Many have also reportedly been forcibly transferred to work in factories in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and in other Chinese provinces.

“Uyghur workers have allegedly been forcibly employed in low-skilled, labor-intensive industries, such as agribusiness, textile and garment, automotive and technological sectors” . . .

[English]

Colleagues, this is the evidence we have before us, and it is evidence that both world bodies and democratic countries are acknowledging as credible.

I submit that what is happening in Xinjiang should terrify us all the more because the actions we are hearing about now are consistent with actions that Communist authorities in the People’s Republic have taken for many years. My intent is not to be inflammatory or dramatic, but I believe we need to be honest when it comes to the historical record, because the historical record helps us to fully comprehend what is happening in Xinjiang today.

The Chinese Communist Party has ruled mainland China for more than 70 years. The generally accepted fact is, in that period of time, it has murdered between 30 and 45 million people. Some argue that the number is even higher. No one will likely ever know the precise number. It doesn’t matter what the exact number is; it is horrifying.

[Translation]

The thing that concerns us in the history of the Communist Party is that the regime that committed these acts is still in power today. It has never been held accountable for its actions. We have nonetheless decided to strengthen our relationship with that regime. I wonder why. I imagine that we wanted to believe the regime would change on its own, that it would recognize the need to change. Although it now says mistakes were made in the past, this does not change one of the core guiding principles of the regime, specifically, that any action to defend the interests of the Communist Party is justified.

This fundamental position is what makes what is happening in Xinjiang so terrifying. That is why we cannot simply turn a blind eye yet again. We cannot convince ourselves that the regime will change on its own. It has sent a clear message that it does not believe it needs to change. That is the difference between what is happening in Xinjiang and what is happened to residential school survivors in Canada, for those who want to make that comparison. I would say that it is because of our own history and the deeply rooted repercussions that are still felt today, that we feel compelled to denounce the situation when we see it elsewhere.

[English]

Unlike Canada, the Communist regime in China doesn’t believe it is doing anything wrong. They believe their actions are justified. A few months ago, published secret remarks reportedly delivered by Chinese President Xi Jinping show his active engagement in the actions being carried out in Xinjiang today.

According to The Guardian newspaper, the leaked documents include three speeches delivered by the Chinese president in April 2014. These reference security, population control and the need to punish the Uighur population. Some of these leaked documents were reportedly marked “top secret.”

The transcript of one speech from May 2014 quotes President Xi as saying that the Communist Party “must not hesitate or waver in the use of the weapons of the people’s democratic dictatorship and focus our energy on executing a crushing blow” against the forces of so-called religious extremism in Xinjiang. When one considers the history of the Communist Party in China, these remarks are chilling.

Last year, when my motion concerning the genocide of the Uighurs was considered in this chamber, it was rejected by the majority — which I think was a shame. I believe part of that is because there has not been a full appreciation as to the scope of what has been happening in Xinjiang. Perhaps it is because we have been so hopeful for a People’s Republic of China that, with time, would more closely resemble our values, that we have lost sight of what the Communist regime has done in the past and of what it is capable of doing today.

As I have said, the regime has never been held to account for its past atrocities, yet there appears to be a tendency to forget them.

Recall that our Prime Minister once called Communist China the country he admired most in the world. I’m not recalling that remark in an attempt to be cheeky — it shows our naïveté and misguided approach. I cite it as an example of that naïveté, engendered by the blind eye that we turn to this history of the Communist Party of China — a naïveté that I find extremely worrisome and dangerous. This naïveté has even given rise to a belief that there is a moral equivalence between democratic states and tyrannical regimes.

In this regard, last June, the former leader of the government spoke of the supposed “tone of moral superiority and self-righteousness contained in the motion,” in reference to my motion concerning the Uighur genocide.

The argument that somehow, because Canada has not been perfect, we then have no right to judge what is taking place in Xinjiang today, is one of the most morally paralyzed responses I’ve ever heard.

As I said earlier, it is because of our own history of residential schools and the ongoing damage and trauma caused by them that Canada is not only well positioned but is actually obligated to call out and take action against what is happening to the Uighur people.

Imagine the consequences for the entire world were such a position adopted during the 1930s. Could we have ever opposed the rise of fascism?

Then there is the naive — if not spurious — argument that we must “engage” with the Chinese regime and help them understand that the path they are on will not be successful for them.

My colleague Senator Woo made this very argument last June, saying that he preferred to seek to convince the Communist regime that their methods are unlikely to achieve a successful outcome. As I said, spurious or, at the very least, extremely naive.

With all due respect, Senator Woo, I would perhaps be disquieted had I been one of the senators who, last June, was complimented by the Chinese ambassador as “people of vision,” people who were described by the ambassador as having “seen through the despicable schemes of a few anti-China forces.”

The regime does not acknowledge the truth, or even the facts, of what is going on in Xinjiang. How, then, are we to somehow convince them to change their ways?

I fear that our government’s own moral ambivalence — by abstaining on a motion in the House of Commons last year that condemned the Uighur genocide — has only encouraged further repression. There are not many Western governments, colleagues, that have refused to recognize what is going on there as a genocide. The Canadian government continues to refuse.

[Translation]

What is happening in Xinjiang is reminiscent of similar actions we’ve seen from this regime in the past, and it is terrifying. Much has been written about what the Chinese Communist Party’s ultimate goals in Xinjiang might be. Is it simply to suppress and eradicate a minority culture? Does it have a broader objective, for example, to replace the Uighur population with a majority Han Chinese population? No one knows for sure. What we do know, however, is that millions of people who are part of a minority population are being detained and subjected to intensive re‑education. That is one of the findings of a recent study by the Brookings Institution.

[English]

In the face of that, I believe we must respond, and we must respond firmly. In my view, we must actively oppose and sanction what is happening in order to begin to protect the Uighur people and other ethnic minorities.

I agree with what former senator Roméo Dallaire has argued in a very morally clear way. He said:

When there is massive abuses of human rights by a state . . . we all have the responsibility to go in and protect them.

What does “protecting them” mean in the context of a great power like the Chinese Communist state? In my view, at a minimum, it means we should not be co-participants in their repression, even if inadvertently.

This bill proposes to stop the importation of goods from a region where crimes of genocide are taking place and forced labour practices are evident. This is certainly a modest measure, but I believe the bill can play a part in opposing what is happening in Xinjiang. In my view, the measure proposed in this bill is entirely consistent with Canada’s obligations to the World Trade Organization, or WTO.

Article 21(b)(iii) of the WTO permits member states to take trade actions to protect essential security interests in a time of war or in order to respond to other emergencies in international relations. The existence of a genocide, one that is widely reported and acknowledged, must certainly be regarded as one of those international relations emergencies. Historically, Canada has taken such measures before, for instance, against Myanmar/Burma in the face of egregious human rights abuses. I submit that what is happening in Xinjiang also constitutes an egregious abuse of human rights.

Many of Canada’s allies agree and are already acting. Just to reference some examples, in 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act imposing various restrictions on the import of goods from Xinjiang. The senate in Australia has passed a bill seeking to prohibit the importation of all goods produced, in whole or in part, by forced labour. The European Parliament has called on the European Commission to adopt measures, including a prohibition on goods produced through forced labour, in the European market.

Just as is occurring in relation to those measures, as this bill advances, I am certainly more than willing to listen to suggestions to improve the bill and to strengthen it. However, in my view, what is most important at this stage is to move the bill forward from second reading to committee consideration.

I know there are some concerns that this bill goes too far and that we should be focused on stopping the import of products that we know are specifically manufactured using forced labour. Some opponents will argue that we already have a law in place to deal with just that. The problem is that the current law isn’t sufficient or simply isn’t being enforced. Whether that’s through lack of resources or lack of political will, only the Minister of Public Safety, previously Bill Blair and now Minister Marco Mendicino, can tell us for sure.

Consider that in the year since we changed our customs law, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, has stopped only one shipment from China with goods deemed to have been manufactured using slave labour. Colleagues, something’s clearly not working — whether it’s the law itself or the inability to enforce it. I’m referring to the changes that were made to our customs law after an agreement to halt the importation of goods manufactured with forced labour as part of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA.

In the United States, the onus is on anyone importing certain goods from the Xinjiang region to prove that those goods aren’t the product of forced labour. Whereas, here in Canada, CBSA has taken the position that it doesn’t have the authority to put the onus on the importers. Would it surprise my colleagues to know that CBSA argued this position before the Federal Court after a refugee group filed legal action last year?

That’s why I wanted to introduce this bill. I want to make sure it is very clear to CBSA that they have the authority to stop all goods from Xinjiang and that there is no onus on anyone to prove anything. I want to make it as clear and as simple as possible for our agents on the front lines to be able to do their job in fighting this egregious behaviour, and I want to send a clear and unequivocal message to the communist regime of China that we, a G7 country, will no longer tolerate China’s egregious and outrageous human rights abuses. We will use the leverage we have, which is access to our wealthy consumer markets and which is considerable leverage, colleagues.

I acknowledge that if this bill is enacted, the communist regime will retaliate. We should be under no illusions about that since, in the face of the arrest of Meng Wanzhou in 2018, the regime retaliated against Canada by taking two Canadians hostage. It’s ironic that I speak of this during anti-bullying week here in Canada, because there is no perpetual bully in the world right now bigger than the Chinese regime.

We know and should expect that the regime may take similar bullying steps again. It is also likely to impose its own economic measures against Canada, just as it has done in the past in order to intimidate Canada, Australia and many other of our allies. Australia, however, has responded confidently by diversifying its markets. It has engaged closely with like-minded allies in order to make its stance even more effective against this brutal regime. This is what Canada must do as well. We should partner with like-mind allies, countries like Australia, the United States, Japan, India and others. The government should take steps to protect Canadians by urging them not to travel to China if at all possible or to leave that country as soon as possible.

I agree we need to act multilaterally, but we must also be prepared to lead. That’s what Canada has done in the past. In the face of the moral challenges we are facing, I do not believe that we have any other option. That also includes calling on Canadian companies to stop investing in Chinese companies implicated in gross human rights violations.

Thanks to the research and subsequent report done by Hong Kong Watch, we know that some of the largest Western pension funds, including CPP Investments, the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation and Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec maintain substantial investments in Chinese banking and business concerns that are allegedly complicit in human rights violations, including a number of Chinese companies that have been sanctioned by our allies around the world, like the United States.

We know that many well-known Western companies are heavily invested in Xinjiang and are benefiting from direct and indirect forced labour. Well-known figures, such as basketball star Enes Freedom, formerly Enes Kanter, have been speaking out against Nike and other major corporations who have been implicated as a result of their investments in China, activities that only serve to strengthen and embolden a communist regime. We should not permit these activities to continue, because if we do, we are complicit in these human rights violations and in this genocide.

Colleagues, I believe that we have a moral obligation to act, as well as have a legal obligation.

As Sarah Teich, an international human rights lawyer and legal adviser to the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project has pointed out, Canada has not only ratified several treaties that impose international legal obligations to suppress and eliminate forced labour, but are also a state party to the UN Genocide Convention, which means that we are obligated not just to not commit genocide but also to prevent it, to speak out against it, to take action against it.

Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states:

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

“Undertake to prevent,” colleagues. It is not enough to wait for the punishment to be doled out once the UN has established that a genocide has been committed. We are obliged under the law and obligated to prevent it from happening in the first place. Canada should not be signatories to these agreements for fun. They should mean something. Our word, our signature, should mean something.

I know that many of you are disquieted by the idea of confronting China. The communist regime is a powerful one. They have their economic tentacles in all areas of our society and institutions in Canada and around the Western democratic word, but this regime is also increasing its repression, not just against the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities, but also in Hong Kong and against all dissenters throughout China and around the world. Simultaneously, the regime is becoming more bellicose in its actions against neighbouring states such as Taiwan, India and Japan, and against neighbours in the South China Sea.

Threats and intimidation are a hallmark of this bully, but we can no longer be silent in the face of repression. We have a moral and legal responsibility to do the right thing. We know the millions facing repression in Xinjiang are calling on us to do the right thing. They’re calling for help. We shouldn’t bury our heads in the sand. We shouldn’t turn our backs on them. We should hear their cries. These are people who are being tortured, oppressed and used in labour camps. Often many of those products find their way to our shelves.

Canada can lead by example, and I believe this bill is just one step in doing that. In that spirit, honourable colleagues, I urge you all to support this legislation and send a message to the Uighur people that the Senate of Canada and the Parliament of Canada hear their cries, and we are ready to do something about it. Thank you.

Senator Housakos: Senator Carignan, thank you for your commitment to Canada’s official languages. I would like you to comment on certain associated aspects.

Would you agree that Canada’s Official Languages Act is not like any other legislation, and that it is about more than just defining the country’s two official languages?

Do you not believe that the official languages of Canada are an element that is supposed to identify us as Canadians?

Are the official languages not a tool that unites Canadians from coast to coast to coast? Would you agree that, no matter where we come from, both official languages are used every day, in Canada and in all areas of the world?

It is also a way to recognize the two founding peoples of this country, including the Acadians, who opened their doors and provided people like me, the son of immigrants, with the opportunity to settle here. My mother tongue was neither French nor English.

As an institution and as a country, we have always celebrated the fact that all Canadians are free to use their mother tongue.

More specifically, do you agree with me that the official languages are undeniably an element that represents the Canadian identity?

Senator Carignan: Indeed, senator, you painted a fine picture of our country’s characteristic identity, with its two founding peoples and its two official languages.

It is also the role of the Governor General to represent that Canadian identity, and that is why it is important to prioritize selection criteria requiring the person to be able to address Canadians in both official languages. That is also the message we want to send the world, that Canada is a bilingual country, with two official languages, English and French. When the Governor General addresses people outside the country, he or she shows the world that Canada is a country that has two official languages.

Promoting that identity requires knowledge and use of both languages.

I very much appreciated the quote by Mr. Dion, who I believe is a man who is greatly respected by everyone. I thought it was especially important when he said that if we want the body to be bilingual, then the head needs to be bilingual. If the head is unilingual, then the body will be unilingual too.

I think that we need to take every opportunity to promote both our official languages. I believe that when we appoint people to positions as high as that of head of state and commander-in-chief, that person should be able to address people in our two official languages.

[English]