SoVote

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/9/23 12:52:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the Liberals that they think they are back. I was not a member of Parliament or a politician in 2015 when the Prime Minister stood up and said that Canada was back. He tapped his chest and did that little thing he does when he is trying to make people think he really means it. We all thought he did. The Prime Minister said all of the right words, all the right things that we wanted to hear. He said that Canada was back. We were going to be back on the world stage, and we were going to back with peacekeepers. He promised over 600 peacekeepers. He told us we were going to be back on international development and diplomacy, that we were going to be in those conversations. No one is more disappointed that that never happened than I am. We went through the Harper decade. I was with civil society groups that were working on foreign affairs, international development and sustainable development in the Harper years. I saw what happened under the Harper decade. We were so looking forward to a shining example of what this country could be. Unfortunately, eight years in, the Liberals have failed to deliver that for us. We have a 15% cut to international development assistance in the budget at a time when we know the world needs Canada to step up more than ever. We have 60 peacekeepers in the field when the government promised 600. We have failures on our diplomatic fronts. Every decision the Liberal government makes puts trade ahead of human rights, ahead of people and ahead of women, every single decision. However, that is not why I am here today. I just could not let it pass, to have the government tell us parliamentarians that Canada is back. Canada is not back. We are here to talk about Bill C-41. I will repeat what I just mentioned. I have worked in international development, foreign affairs and sustainable development around the world. I did it for my entire career prior to being a politician, in countries all throughout the world. I have represented organizations. I have done an awful lot of this work. It is very important work. I sometimes think that, in the House of Commons, we forget that. We forget that our foreign policy is a stool. That stool requires trade, one hundred per cent, and it requires diplomatic relationships with other countries. It also requires development, and we know what happens when we step back from that piece of the stool. What we are talking about today is basically a humanitarian carve-out so that we would be able to get urgent help to people in Afghanistan, except that is not what this bill is. That is not how legislation works. This would impact the international development and humanitarian sectors for decades because it is law. It is not contextual for the Afghan crisis. I will say, I have stood in the House time and time again demanding that the government do more for the people of Afghanistan. My heart breaks for the women and girls in Afghanistan who cannot go to school, who cannot leave their homes, whose lives are in danger. The worst day I have had as a parliamentarian was finding out that one of their members of Parliament was murdered because we did not get her out fast enough. What is happening in Afghanistan is horrendous, and we need to do what we can, but this bill is going to have implications longer than just what is happening in Afghanistan. This would have implications around the world, and I do not think the people in the House are treating it with the severity that they need to. It has been over two years since I asked the government to work with civil society, the non-profit sector and experts in the field to come up with a plan. It has been over two years. It was in May 2021. In February 2021, I wrote to then minister Garneau and said that this is what is going to happen. The U.S. has indicated that they are leaving, and this is what is going to happen. What is the plan? There was never a plan put in place. There was never a plan to help those people who had worked so hard for Canadians. There was never a plan put in place to make sure that Canadian organizations doing the incredible work on the ground were able to work in Afghanistan. For two years, we have been asking for this legislation. We asked for the government to work with the sector. I understand that none of us in this place are experts in everything. We cannot be. We have to depend on experts. We have to depend on experts to give us the best advice, but the government did not get the best advice. The sector clearly asked for a humanitarian carve-out. What it got, in the first iteration of Bill C-41, was a messy, overly bureaucratic, overly complicated criminalization of humanitarian aid and international development. It got a bill that was created by three ministries. Do members know who led that? The Minister of Public Safety. I am sorry, but the Minister of Public Safety does not work in international development. I do not know where the Minister of International Development was or why he was not part of these conversations. I do not know why we did not hear enough from Global Affairs Canada, but we did not. That is the reality. Therefore, we had a messy and broken piece of legislation come forward because the government refused to listen to the experts. The experts knew what was needed and what would make the lives of those in the sector easier so they could go into Afghanistan and provide life-saving aid and support to its people. I want to take a moment here because I agree with my colleague from the Bloc, the member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Jean. I worked very well with him. I also want to give a shout-out to the member for Oakville North—Burlington because she was basically given a terrible piece of legislation and told to shine it. When I say a terrible piece of legislation, I think members know exactly what I think of it. She was told to make it better, so instead of bringing us a law that we could improve slightly, she brought us a dumpster fire that we then had to try to do what we could with, so I want to give her a shout-out. She worked very hard, very collaboratively and very well with me. I worked very well with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. We all, every one of us, wanted to make sure this bill got help to people in Afghanistan as fast as it could. When the Minister of Public Safety came to committee, he talked to us about balance. He said that we have to have a balance between protecting against terrorist and protecting international development groups. What I said to him then, and I will say to every member in the House right now, is that the balance is wrong. He got the balance wrong. The balance we have right now criminalizes international development organizations. It is only because we were able to get an NDP amendment through for a carve-out that humanitarian organizations are not in there. The folks who work within public safety do great work, but they do not understand international human rights law. They do not understand international development rights. They just do not have that line. Therefore, we worked with other parties to try to get this fixed because one of the key things, and I think perhaps something that members do not understand, is ensuring that organizations can maintain their neutrality. It is vital. It is a cornerstone of humanitarian and international development work because we are asking these organizations to go into sectors, regions and areas that are under fire and are very dangerous. We are asking them to go into some of the worst places on the planet, and often those places are rife with conflict. There are often groups working there who are bad actors, and terrorists who are doing terrible things, so the only way organizations can do that work is if they are seen as neutral, independent and impartial. This legislation makes organizations go to the government to get permission to work in certain areas, which takes away their ability to be impartial and independent. I raised this when the Minister of International Development was first appointed. As members know, he is the former minister of defence. No offence to the minister, but that was a terrible idea because we spend our entire careers trying to ensure that folks understand we are not the military and we are not the government. We are independent. We are here to help. We are here to provide life-saving supports. That is what the sector does, what it tries to do. When we put in a minister who is a former minister of defence, how does that look? It endangers the organizations working on the ground. It is an indication that the government does not understand, that it does not care and that it does not get it. We did vote for the bill to go to committee, because, as I said, we all wanted to make sure that this aid got out to the people in Afghanistan who needed it. When the bill came to committee, we brought forward 12 amendments, and all of those amendments came from the sector. However, only six of those amendments were adopted. As I mentioned, the key amendment for us was making sure that the humanitarian exemption was finally agreed to by the other parties. It was ruled out of scope, but we were able to bring it forward within the House. However, that was only one fix. That was only one of the things we wanted to ensure were fixed that the sector had asked us to fix. One of the other things was a list. In this legislation, the government refuses to tell organizations which regions, which areas, they would need to ask for an exemption for, which puts all the onus on the organization. When we stand in this very sterile environment, it seems to make sense that an organization that is going to work in Sudan should ask if Sudan is one of the countries it would need an exemption for. However, that is not how international development works. Some of the Canadian organizations that I have worked with have 40-year relationships in some of the countries they work in. Change for Children in my riding has a 40-year relationship working in Nicaragua, and I can tell members that what is happening in Nicaragua has changed over 40 years. We are not just asking organizations to check whether or not they can get into a country and do work. We are asking them to check, almost daily, to see if anything has changed, and the world changes. It is not the House of Commons where these organizations are working. They are working in mayhem. They are working in places that are in crisis. They are working in places that are in conflict. It is absurd to ask them to do that, to put that onus on them, because the government does not want to prepare a list of countries, and it is a list that it has to have. If the government does not have a list, it is almost negligence. However, to not be able to share that list with the organizations is shocking to me. It is absurd. Another thing, which we tried to fix, is that in the legislation there is the term “links to a terrorist group”, which is not defined anywhere. There is nothing in this legislation that would define “links to a terrorist group”. What does that mean? Does it mean a person who rode on the same bus as someone, or who is talking to someone whose sister-in-law is implicated? Nobody knows what it means. It has no legal definition. In fact, I will read from the brief from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which said: This is much too discretionary; for example, would distant family ties, former work or school associates, or membership in the same religious community or congregation be considered links? In our work, we have seen how each of these types of “links” have been identified by security agencies as being grounds for suspicion based solely on guilt by association. The example of Afghanistan, a Muslim majority country, is apt in this assistance, as we have particularly observed how Muslims in Canada are subject to this exact kind of guilt by association, leading to increased surveillance, loss of security clearances and employment [and] even includes the sharing of information which has led to rendition, arbitrary detention and torture This is not good legislation when we have organizations like this one telling us that this does not make sense and that it is not clear. The other piece I have with this legislation is that, right now, I have been told by the government that it is going to put policies in place to make sure that this all works just fine. However, the problem with policies are that other governments can come forward, and other governments can use the legislation differently. I have a very deep concern that, if we were to get a Conservative government, Conservatives could weaponize international development, and I will tell members why I think that is a concern. It is because they have done it before. I was in the sector when the Harper government weaponized and refused funding to Oxfam. I was in the sector when the government weaponized it when Bev Oda wrote the infamous “not” on the application for funding so that Kairos, who had been critical of the government, could not get funding. The Conservative government has done this before. They could do it again, and there is no protection in this legislation to make sure that does not happen. What happens if, all of a sudden, organizations are not allowed to work in Gaza? What happens if, all of a sudden, the government decides to delay providing the exemption? Right now, there are three ministries involved: public safety, justice and international development. I have spent most of my career trying to get funding through Global Affairs Canada and I can tell everyone that it is almost never able to deliver on the timelines it puts forward, through no fault of its own. Some of the best, most devoted public servants in our country are at Global Affairs Canada, but they are under-resourced, understaffed and under-empowered to make the decisions. Let us add in two more ministries and see how that goes, and let us think about that in context as well. A humanitarian crisis is an emergency. That means that things have to happen in hours, not days. Action has to be taken to save lives in hours. We heard from one of the witnesses that they think they would be able to get a decision back to organizations well within six months. Within six months, people are dying. People need the support, they are dying and hours make all the difference, but we are being told months, and that is from a government that has not been able to deliver on its promises to date. I am deeply concerned about that. There is another thing I want to bring up very quickly. One of the amendments we were able to get through and that I am very happy about is that there will be a one-year review, so we will be reviewing this legislation in one year. It is part of the reason I think it is very important for the House to look at this seriously and keeps a very close eye on it. I cannot support this legislation. This legislation goes against all of the principles of international development and international humanitarian law. It does not listen to the sector and to the supports that the sector has asked for. There is one other thing. We are also the only country in this situation. The U.S. has a humanitarian exemption. The U.K., the EU and other countries were able to do what the Liberal government could not do. They were able to do what the government, with the support of every party in this House, was unable to manage to get done. I know the bill will pass. It will not pass with my support. I do not believe that this legislation is worthy of being passed. The fact that other parties are voting for it indicates that they have a smaller understanding of international development and humanitarian law. I am glad that the help will get to the people of Afghanistan as soon as possible. I am appalled that it has taken us two years to get to this point, but the international development sector offering people in crisis around the world crumbs and telling them they have to take it because that is all there is on offer is un-Canadian.

2927 words

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

Jun/9/23 1:11:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I do have many concerns about this legislation, although I do think the member gilds the lily a bit. The irony, in relation to her comments, is that the development sector has overwhelmingly said that it would like us to pass this bill, though it has also been critical of various aspects of it. I know the member worked in the sector previously, but I do not think she knows more than all of the stakeholders that represent the sector. I would challenge her to provide the House with one or a couple of quotations from individuals who actually want us to vote against the bill. There is going to be a lot of information out there of people saying things that are critical about the bill, but can she name one development organization that is standing up and saying we should oppose this bill? The other irony I will point out is that, despite the member's sharp criticisms of the government, she is a member of a party that continues to give confidence and supply to the government. The Conservatives and the Bloc, though we have voted against the government on key confidence and supply issues, have sought to work collaboratively with the government to find compromises, recognizing that one cannot always get 100% of one's way here. I have two questions for the member. First, can the member name any stakeholder that agrees with the NDP position of opposing the bill at third reading? Second, if these issues are so fundamental, why does her party uniquely continue to provide the government with confidence and supply?

275 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/9/23 1:13:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell members a little bit about our foreign affairs committee. It is an interesting committee. Of course we have people from all parties. It is probably one of the most important committees that we have in the House of Commons, particularly considering the war in Ukraine, what we see happening in Afghanistan and Sudan; conflicts that we have around the world that Canada could play a uniquely important role in. One of the things that I am quite proud of is that at committee we represent the policies that are brought forward by the government or we test them to see if they are being upheld. I was part of the sector when the feminist international assistance policy was brought forward, something that I am very proud of. Of course, I would like to urge the government to do more to make sure that we are actually implementing that policy. One of the things that came forward in this last recent session is that we were able to look at the sexual and reproductive rights for women around the world. This happened after a lot of delay by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan because he was filibustering. He had some religious objections. He tries to impose his will on our committee on quite a regular basis, to the detriment of the work that we need to get done for places around the world. Realistically, I am happy that we were able to get that study done after his filibuster. He tried to filibuster a study I brought forward where I talked about the idea of peaceful things Canada could do to make peace more likely in the Middle East. Frankly, I am not really interested in answering his questions.

297 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/9/23 1:14:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech. Her passion and commitment on this issue are very clear. I would like to better understand her position. I understand that this bill is not really perfect. My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said that it was a compromise. I understood from the member's speech that the bill's approach goes completely against the spirit of international development. However, there is a crisis in Afghanistan and the NGOs are asking us to support this bill, for lack of a better option. I understood that the member's party will be voting against the bill for the reasons she gave. Does she think it would be better to implement this bill or to have nothing at all?

127 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/9/23 1:15:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is the difficult challenge that we found this sector in. This is in fact exactly where we are at, with millions of people who are dying and millions of people who are at risk. There are also principles of humanitarian development and humanitarian aid that are core principles under which we need to do this work and this bill pits those two things against each other. That is the problem. This bill actually is offering, like I said, crumbs to the sector in saying they are not going to get what they want or what they need, the people of Afghanistan are not going to get what they want or what they need, but here is something. They either have to take this or they have to wait another two years for anything, if anything ever comes forward. It is not really a fair choice to give to the sector. It is not really a fair choice to give to any of us in this place to give us such flawed legislation, knowing that people's lives are on the line and we either have to choose to support a terrible bill being brought forward by the government or let people die. It is an impossible choice and the implications are that down the road this could have impacts on other populations. This could mean other people could die because of the criminalization of development.

238 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.)

Jun/9/23 1:17:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her impassioned speech but, more importantly, for the work that she has done and for the work that she continues to do to advocate for those less fortunate around the world. Perhaps I do not have as much experience as my colleague, but I have had the privilege of working with NGOs that are doing a tremendous amount of work in Afghanistan. I am always reminded that one of the most important principles of humanitarian aid is humanity and making sure we take care of the most vulnerable. Now, this legislation may not be perfect. It may not be what everybody wanted in its purest form, but would it not make sense for us to send a united message that at a minimum we are all united in trying to alleviate the suffering of those in Afghanistan and allowing those NGOs that need to be doing this important work to be able to do that work? Recognizing that there are always areas of improvement, would it not send a message to the Taliban and to others that we are not going to stand in the way as a Parliament of working together to achieve these goals?

207 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/9/23 1:18:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41

Mr. Speaker, this comment goes back to what I was saying before. As much as I think all of us in this place want to get aid to the people of Afghanistan as fast as possible, and I honestly believe that all of us in this place want that, the difficulty of being a lawmaker is that we have to look at the long-term implications of the laws we put forward. What happens if this means there are women and girls in other countries who do not get the support they need because we put legislation in place and because another government chooses to weaponize it? It is a real concern. I appreciate the work the member has done in Afghanistan. I want to give a huge shout-out to an organization, Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, which continues to do everything it can to help women and girls in Afghanistan at a time of great personal risk. One thing we should all continue to think about as we think about Bill C-41 is that the organizations that represent Canada around the world, the CSOs and NGOs, the organizations doing this important work, are heroes. They really do need to be acknowledged in this place.

208 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Jun/9/23 1:19:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's passion and her years of experience, and I certainly hope the people in this place are listening. I spent many years of my life working in a non-profit organization to support newcomers coming to Canada. One of the things I found very liberating about the work we did is that we were able to get on the ground quickly and respond to issues as they arose. Being funded by different levels of government, they were often slow and not able to do that work, so our work was precious. When I heard her speech, I could see very clearly that it is the same thing. Not having the links to terrorism defined really prevents them from being able to do their work effectively. When we have them figuring out where they can and cannot go, it keeps adding burdens, and every burden we add means that lives cannot be saved. I am wondering if the member can talk about how quickly these civil society organizations can move and what the barriers are when government adds these extra duties.

186 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/9/23 1:20:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia is absolutely right. She really could not be more correct about these burdens added to organizations that are already underfunded. Remember, these are organizations facing a 15% cut in official international development assistance. These are the same organizations that have lived through decades of neglect, starting with Stephen Harper and continuing with the current government. These are organizations for which core funding was stopped, so they did not have the capacity to maintain staff and maintain the work. Every burden we add to that, every single thing we add to those organizations, means it is harder for them to do the work they need to do in the field. It is so much more difficult. I want to add, and I said it in my speech but I will say it again, that it is difficult for any non-profit organization to work with a single federal ministry, but to have to work with three is absurd.

164 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.)

Jun/9/23 1:21:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-41

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and speak on Bill C-41. First, I want to begin by thanking all of my colleagues from all parties who have been working hard at this, particularly my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington, who has really made this, in many ways, an important part of all of the work that she has done in Parliament. I think we should be very proud that we are at this point. One of the first things that was said to me, when I got elected, by an NGO that is doing work in Afghanistan right now is that we need to find a way to unlock this problem for the people of Afghanistan, for women and girls and for the organizations that are trying their best to work under extremely difficult circumstances. Canadian NGOs have been at the front line of many of the most complicated challenges, the most complicated problems and the most difficult situations and circumstances in Afghanistan. They have been the ones that have been prepared to go to places where many other organizations have not wanted to go. They have been the ones that have been trying to support work in the most complex of circumstances. Our ability to flow funds, our ability for organizations to do work in those areas and our ability for NGOs to be able to do the work that is required of them is really a matter of life and death. We have heard this throughout this debate. We have heard this throughout all of the speeches that at the forefront of our thinking, the forefront of our concern has to be the most vulnerable in Afghanistan and in other countries where this will apply but, in particular, we have been talking a lot about Afghanistan. Two-thirds of the country now needs foreign aid to develop and to survive. People have literally had to make life-or-death decisions about whether they keep their children or sell them in order to be able to feed their families. The question of education is one that people would love to be able to even think about, but they are too busy trying to figure out if they are going to be able to eat. We are at a place now where Bill C-41 finally does what so many have been calling for for so long. We have heard different points of view on whether this is the best route or the perfect route. As we have learned, there is no perfect bill, but we are in a place now where we have the opportunity, as a Parliament, to tell the world that Canada is not only going to be there, that we are not only going to continue the work that we have historically done, but we are now going to make it possible for these NGOs to do the work that, in many ways, was made impossible not by design but by circumstance. The fact that the Taliban took the decision to enforce legislation governing taxation of NGOs put so many people at risk of criminal liability. What this meant was that organization upon organization had to make the difficult decision of how they were going to engage, whether they were going to take the risks that involved. This has led to an unprecedented economic humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. We are talking about 20 million people at risk. Being able to pass this bill, making sure that we come together to get this over the finish line, to send a clear message that Canadian NGOs will be able to do the important work that they need to do, is something that I think we should all be proud of and that we should all do together.

633 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/9/23 1:25:28 p.m.
Watch

It being 1:25 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 8, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading of the bill now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

83 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Jun/9/23 1:26:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/9/23 1:26:15 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 12, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

45 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/9/23 1:26:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 1:30 p.m., so we can begin private members' hour.

33 words

Hour
Private

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/9/23 1:26:43 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.? Some hon. members: Agreed.

21 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/9/23 1:27:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to provide some comments on the member for Scarborough North's motion. I think the member has done us a great service, in terms of providing this motion before the House, and I just want to thank him for the work he has done in bringing it to the stage at which it is. The issue of racism is very much alive, and there is a role for parliamentarians to do what we can. This motion, if it passes, and I sure hope it does pass, would ensure a direct action that would see a standing committee of the House do a study with a particular focus on hate crimes, an issue that affects all of society. We need to be able to come together. I was just reflecting, a few minutes back, on Canada's diversity, and it is no doubt one of the greatest strengths we have here in Canada, if not the greatest. We should never, ever, take that for granted. We have, in the month of June, for example, Indigenous History Month. We have Filipino Heritage Month. We have the Portuguese community, the Italian community and all the communities that are celebrating their heritage in the month of June. This speaks in terms of Canadian heritage, which is ongoing and continues to evolve. It speaks volumes about our diversity. As elected officials, we often go out into our communities and talk about Canada's diversity. Part of that is the responsibility of recognizing, as the member for Scarborough North has done, that there are racial incidents that are causing harm, and we need to be able to address that. From my perspective, the best way of addressing issues such as discrimination and racist behaviour is through education. I have advocated for years for the importance of cross-cultural education and ways we can marginalize those with attitudes that are negative and have a racial bias. That would include, for example, looking at our education system and encouraging its incorporation into the curriculum. There are all sorts of things, from the school board level to the Parliament of Canada. Here we have an opportunity to take a tangible action, and I would encourage all members, of whatever political stripe, to get behind the member for Scarborough North, who has been leading on this issue, and support the motion today.

401 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Jun/9/23 1:30:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise to speak to the motion on the floor of the House, a motion that touches so many Canadians across the coast, myself included, Canadians who trace their roots back to Asia. If we are going toward a future free of anti-Asian racism and discrimination, we need to learn from the past. One in five Canadians, 20%, including my family and many members of the House, traces their roots back to Asia. Asian Canadians have made a significant contribution to Canada, going back to the mid-19th century. For example, Chinese immigrants began to enter Canada in the mid-1800s. Many of these Chinese immigrants were labourers. The opium wars had just ended, and many were looking for work. Some of them came in the British Columbia gold rush of 1858. Some of them ended up working on the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, playing a major role in Confederation. In fact, Confederation would not have happened if not for the thousands of Chinese labourers who came over to the west to build the railway. Their back-breaking labour literally laid the steel foundation that laid the constitutional foundation of our 1867 Constitution. The Canadian Pacific company was formed in 1881 for the express purpose of fulfilling a promise made to the colony of British Columbia. This was the promise: If British Columbia joined Canada and Confederation, then the Canadian government would build a railway connecting eastern Canada to the Pacific Ocean. B.C. joined Canada and Confederation on July 20, 1871. The Canadian Pacific Railway was established subsequently, in 1881, and the railway was completed in 1885. The construction of this railway was incredibly dangerous; through the Rockies, the Pacific coast mountain ranges and the vast Prairies, it was very dangerous work. Tens of thousands of labourers worked to construct the railway, including 15,000 Chinese railway workers. They worked in the harshest conditions year-round, with little pay. Historians have estimated that at least 600 Chinese railway workers died constructing the railway. That is an incredible human toll of suffering and misery to complete what laid the base of this country's Confederation. Despite all that work and sacrifice, they were discriminated against during and after. The Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 was passed and put in place by Parliament to discourage Chinese immigration to Canada. Under that act of 1885, a $50 head tax, a great sum of money at the time, was levied on all Chinese immigrants. That tax was then increased to $100 per head in 1900. It was increased to $500 per head in 1903. Even this punishing head tax did not deter Chinese immigration to Canada as the act had intended. In fact, the Chinese population in Canada tripled during the time of the head tax, from 13,000 people in 1885 to 39,587 people in 1921. Therefore, the government decided to put in place an even harsher solution: full exclusion, a full ban. Parliament passed the Chinese Immigration Act, with the exact same title as the initial Chinese immigration act. It was also known as the “Chinese Exclusion Act”. The act, which was in place from 1923 to 1947, banned virtually all Chinese immigration to Canada for those 24 years. Although immigration to Canada from other countries was restricted during those years as it is today, unlike today, only Chinese people were singled out and banned entirely from immigrating to Canada and entirely on the basis of their race and race alone. It took until 1947 for the Parliament of Canada to repeal this law and it took until 1967 for all immigration rules based on national origin and race to be fully eliminated. My father was one of the Chinese immigrants who immigrated to Canada. He immigrated from Hong Kong in 1952 to Winnipeg, just five years after the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by this very House. He arrived as a young student at the University of Manitoba, but even though the act had been repealed five years earlier, the sentiments behind the act still lingered on. He faced racism and discrimination that our generation can only imagine. He was also, I have to say, met with the incredible generosity and fair-mindedness of ordinary Canadians who invited him, as a single student thousands of miles away from home and very much alone, to a Sunday roast beef dinner or to a Thanksgiving dinner or to spend a weekend with a fellow student's family. Nevertheless, it was tough times in those 1950s for Chinese immigrants. He had to support himself. At one point he could not find work here in Canada as a student, during the summer, and so he decided to go down to New York City to work in Manhattan's famed Chinatown. He worked in a Chinese laundry and in a Chinese restaurant washing dishes, as thousands of Chinese immigrants in decades past have done coming to Canada, in order to save the dollars he needed to put himself through school. Eventually, my father found a position as a summer student working as a lumberjack in northern Ontario in Kenora, which is something I cannot think of as more Canadian to do during a hot summer in northern Ontario. All along, he saved, saved and saved. As the 1950s transitioned to the 1960s and 1970s, Canada began to change. In 1967, we got rid of our race-based requirements for our immigration system. Since then, much further progress has been made, such as the 1982 Patriation of the Constitution along with the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and such as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's apology on June 22, 2006, for the head tax that had been levied on some 81,000 Chinese immigrants to Canada. However, despite all this progress in creating a society free of racism and discrimination, a society where one's race, religion or creed do not determine one's standing in Canadian society, we still face racism and discrimination. The pandemic revealed the ugly side of that in the last several years and so has the rise of the PRC's threats, both here and abroad. People have exploited those issues to foment racism and discrimination against their fellow Asian Canadians. Today, the Asian community is a cherished part of our Canadian society. Whether from places like the People's Republic of China or the Philippines or the Republic of India or so many other places in Asia, the Asian community, which includes one in five Canadians, has made a vibrant contribution to this country. From business to politics and from the academy to arts and charity, Asian Canadians play leading roles in Canadian society. Therefore, as we debate and hopefully adopt this motion and as the committee begins its work, let us remember all the contributions and sacrifices that Asian Canadians have made to this country for well over 150 years. Let us stand in solidarity with Asian Canadians when they face racism and discrimination and let us celebrate Asian Canadians for the contributions they have made and that they continue to make to this our home and native land.

1203 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/9/23 1:40:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since we are on the second hour of considering Motion No. 63, it is important to remember when the first hour occurred. It was in December. It is said that six months is an eternity in politics. I think we had a clear example of that today. In that first hour of consideration of the motion, we did not yet have the revelations from The Globe and Mail and Global News on Beijing's interference in our elections. Not everyone was aware of all of Beijing's measures targeting people from the Chinese community here. This second hour of debate on the anti-Asian racism motion makes it clear—maybe not to parliamentarians because we were already aware of Beijing's practices in the Asian community, but to ordinary people who are probably more aware of the situation now—that members of the Asian community face a double challenge, to say it politely. In addition to being occasionally ostracized by other Canadian citizens, by other people living on Canadian soil, they are also targeted by their country of origin. The fact that we are resuming debate today, after all the information and the leaks that were reported in The Globe and Mail and by Global News, helps shed new light on the importance of this motion. Basically, the motion became essential as a result of the growing stigma that people of Asian descent were experiencing in relation to COVID‑19. Since that was the basic principle, the original reason for which the motion was tabled, I will focus on that aspect. The numbers speak for themselves when it comes to the stigma experienced by people of Asian descent during COVID‑19. Hon. members may also recall the SARS crisis in 2003, when people of Asian descent were ostracized in the same way as they have been regarding COVID‑19. It may have been a little less obvious in the case of SARS, because it was much less widespread globally than COVID‑19, but unfortunately, it was a starting point. This clearly illustrated the problem of quick, easy and deplorable stigmatization towards people who had absolutely no reason to be targeted. The COVID‑19 pandemic has magnified this problem to some extent. Analyses done with the benefit of hindsight have shown that there were indeed clear and concrete examples of much greater ostracization of the Asian population. A 2021 analysis showed that police-reported hate crimes increased between 2019 and 2020 from 3% to 100%, including hate crimes targeting people of East and Southeast Asian descent. That is huge. Statistics Canada also conducted a public survey between August 4 and 24, 2020. It found that there was a marked perception of discrimination and loss of confidence in accessing health care services. Groups designated as visible minorities, most notably Chinese, Korean and southeast Asian participants, were more likely than other groups to have perceived an increase in the frequency of harassment or attacks based on race, ethnicity or skin colour since the beginning of the pandemic. This has been empirically documented. Chinese, Korean, southeast Asian and Black participants were also twice as likely as white participants to report that they had experienced discrimination. These results are consistent with the results of a previous crowdsourcing initiative, which noted an increase in the frequency of race-based harassment or outright attacks. During the same period, Vancouver police reported a 700% increase in hate crimes against Asian communities between 2019, before the pandemic, and 2020, at the height of the pandemic. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Discrimination is nothing new, even if its target changes. It is not related to the pandemic. It even used to be state-sanctioned. I believe it is important to remember history. My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills talked about it. Canada was built by the railroad. People of Chinese descent were called on to work on the railroad, and discrimination already existed back then. After construction of the railroad, it continued. For example, in 1885, Canada imposed a $50 head tax on Chinese immigrants. Imagine what $50 meant in those days. To make it even more difficult for people of Chinese origin to immigrate to Canada, the tax was raised to $500 in 1903. In 1907, Japanese immigration was limited to 400 people a year because of the growing hostility towards the Asian population. This was later limited to 150 people. In 1908, the federal government said that immigrants trying to reach Canada from Asian countries could not have stopovers on their way here. However, at the time, there was no such thing as direct, non-stop travel. That was therefore an indirect way of saying that they could never set foot in Canada. In 1923, the government stopped beating around the bush and simply banned Chinese immigration through legislation. Discrimination was also woven into various laws unrelated to immigration. Election laws come to mind. Limits were placed on the ability of Chinese Canadians, among others, to participate. In 1872, for example, the government of British Columbia forbade Japanese Canadian citizens and indigenous peoples from voting in provincial elections. The goal was to keep political power exclusively in the hands of white people. In 1895, the previously established voting rights of Japanese Canadians were taken away outright. In 1907, the law was extended to include Canadians from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. A short time earlier, citizens of Chinese descent had already been barred from voting in federal elections. More laws limiting their voting rights were passed. For example, if a population were targeted by a law passed by one of the provinces, it would lose its federal voting rights too. There are many moments in history where the government demonstrated racism towards people of Asian origin. The motion is therefore welcome in that it seeks to remedy the current situation, which may stem not from the government but from the population. Educating people about what is happening may lead to change. The motion will also make it possible to conduct studies to see whether anything tangible can be done to resolve this problem. The premise of the motion is to “condemn anti-Asian hate and all forms of racism and racial discrimination”. I would encourage the committee that examines the issue to ensure that the bill is not so specific that it addresses only one form of discrimination, because all forms of discrimination should also be considered in any future anti-racism bills, studies or initiatives. That is what my colleague from Drummond said when he spoke. We hope that, if there are a whole host of bills, studies or initiatives that target specific populations, then no one will fall through the cracks. To return to what I was saying at the start about interference, I think that, aside from the racism issue, we also have to make sure that we give a voice to the public, which is currently calling for a public inquiry. Racism is not the only way to sideline people in the population. These people are asking for an inquiry. It is time we gave them a voice.

1200 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/9/23 1:50:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this crucial motion, which is really important to the NDP caucus. I want to congratulate and thank my colleague from Vancouver East, who has already spoken to this issue. This motion is important because it talks about a phenomenon that sadly still exists in Canada and Quebec, anti-Asian racism. As other colleagues mentioned, it is important to remember that unfortunately, if we look at our history, anti-Asian racism is nothing new. I will go over some of the things that have already been raised here by my colleagues from the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois. Anti-Asian racism has deep roots in our history and our country. Obviously, our country was largely built by Chinese workers. Think of the railroad that is the backbone of the transportation industry and the Canadian economy. Essentially, it was built by thousands of Chinese workers who worked in deplorable conditions, who were literally exploited, and who got injured and suffered almost to the point of dying. This did not bother the big railway owners at the time at all. This racism continued afterwards. Many discriminatory laws against Asian communities were passed. In 1872, in British Columbia, a law took away the right to vote of Chinese Canadians and Canadians of Chinese origin. It is no small thing in a democracy to say to a community that it can no longer participate in democracy, in public and civic life, by taking away their right to vote. In 1895, again in British Columbia, Canadians of Japanese origin lost their right to vote. Then, in 1895, Chinese Canadians lost their right to vote in federal elections, and it would be a long time before this situation was rectified. In 1897, a British Columbia law prohibited workers of Chinese or Japanese origin from getting a job in the mining industry. The economic sector excluded people because of their origins. My colleague spoke about the head tax on Chinese immigrants. In 1885, Chinese immigrants had to pay $50 when they arrived in Canada, and, in 1903, this tax was increased to $500. In 1923, the Chinese Immigration Act, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, outright told those people that they were not wanted. Today, we would call that systemic racism. This racism continued with an unfortunate episode during the Second World War, when, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Canadian government sent 21,000 people of Japanese origin to detention camps. They were imprisoned in these camps for weeks and months, with 4,000 inmates being deported to Japan. Some of those people had never been to Japan in their lives. While it may be less intense today, this discrimination still exists. Discriminatory, hurtful and sometimes violent behaviour against the Asian community remains a reality. It has even been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, with people making completely inane and ridiculous associations because the virus first emerged in the Chinese province of Wuhan. This has given ammunition to conspiracy theorists and people who are simply racist or xenophobic to attack and insult Quebeckers and Canadians of Asian origin. This is not just empty rhetoric. Studies and police reports have confirmed it. In 2021, in Vancouver, which is home to several Asian communities, hate crimes against people from these communities increased by 700%. According to one study, 58% of Asian Canadians overall say they have experienced discrimination. That is the majority. That is what is happening these days. Amy Go, president of the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, says it is a “common and shared experience”. It is a situation that people in the Asian community experience. Unfortunately, it is extremely common, perhaps even more common than the numbers suggest. In 2020, hate crimes in general against the Asian community across Canada increased by 300%. That is huge. What is more, this may only be the tip of the iceberg, because a University of Victoria study found that incidents of racism are not always reported. People from Asian communities do not always report the assaults, violence or insults they experience. The University of Victoria says that these acts are under-reported. It is likely that the situation is even worse than we realize. That is why this motion is important. That is also why the debate we are having and the study that will be done in committee afterwards are important. By working together, as elected representatives, but also as citizens, we are going to be able to tackle this issue and reduce all forms of racism and discrimination. We even saw it here in the streets of Ottawa with the so-called “freedom convoy”. That is their name for it, not mine. Asian people in Ottawa also felt like these protesters were being extremely aggressive and even violent in their words and attitudes. Some people were spit on or shoved because they were Asian. We heard testimony from a young woman who was intimidated for filing for an injunction to clear the city's streets. Someone drove at her in a truck while she was on the sidewalk. The driver stopped about a metre short, just to scare her. This young woman is Asian. This story was reported in the news at the time. Unfortunately, these types of phenomena, statements, attitudes and behaviours were exacerbated by flawed comparisons that put the blame on people who, quite frankly, had nothing to do with a global pandemic that nobody saw coming. While we are talking about anti-Asian racism, I want to talk about a phenomenon that affects many women in the Filipino community. I am referring to the widespread and perhaps even unhealthy reliance on temporary foreign workers. Domestic workers are one of the categories in which the hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers fall into. Many of the workers who are hired by very rich families to do housework, look after children and cook meals are of Asian origin. Unfortunately, there is something call a closed work permit. These temporary foreign workers have a closed work permit and cannot change employer. This means that if they are hired by a very rich family and live in a house as a domestic worker, which is generally the case, and if they are ever the victim of abuse, assault, violence, harassment or sexual assault, they cannot change employer. Their only other option is to buy a plane ticket and go home. I think we should be aware of this phenomenon. I would like to move an amendment to the motion, which I will read right now: That the motion be amended by adding the following after the words “issues of anti-Asian racism”: iv) work collaboratively with community groups and people with lived experience to establish and adequately fund units to prosecute hate crimes in every Canadian community to hold to account the perpetrators responsible and fight against the rise of anti-Asian racism and all forms of hate in Canada.

1181 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/9/23 2:00:02 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to inform hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill without the consent of the sponsor of the item. Since the sponsor is not present to give his consent, the amendment cannot be moved at this time. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Richmond Hill.

74 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 210