Pursuant to notice of March 15, 2021, moved:

That,

(a)in the opinion of the Senate, the People’s Republic of China has engaged in actions consistent with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260, commonly known as the “Genocide Convention”, including detention camps and measures intended to prevent births as it pertains to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims; and

(b)given that (i) where possible, it has been the policy of the Government of Canada to act in concert with its allies when it comes to the recognition of a genocide, (ii) there is a bipartisan consensus in the United States where it has been the position of two consecutive administrations that Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims are being subjected to a genocide by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the Senate, therefore, recognize that a genocide is currently being carried out by the People’s Republic of China against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, call upon the International Olympic Committee to move the 2022 Olympic Games if the Chinese government continues this genocide and call on the government to officially adopt this position; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house with the above.

He said: Honourable colleagues, I’ve made more references in this chamber than I can remember about this chamber being an independent house of Parliament and how we must operate independently from the other place. While I will always fiercely defend that principle which is at the core of our Westminster system, over the past 150 years our two chambers have often demonstrated a will and an ability to work together for the greater good.

There are moments in our history where we have come together to speak in one singular, powerful voice, and we now have before us one of those moments. We have an opportunity right now to come together, like we did earlier on Motion No. 4, to stand together, to stand on principle, to be on the right side of history.

We have seen it time and again throughout history. Around the world, people turn away — sometimes inadvertently, other times on purpose. They turn away from the atrocities being committed against their fellow men and women. It’s not always easy to speak up or speak out. The reasons can be many, but speaking up, speaking out, is the right thing to do. We, as senators, as parliamentarians, but most and above all as Canadians, must speak on behalf of our nation and our people. We must represent the fabric of our nation, our values, and we must do so as one solid parliamentary voice.

That’s why this motion is the same motion that was recently adopted in the House of Commons. If adopted here, it can truly be said that Canada’s Parliament has spoken and has declared what is happening to minority Muslims in Xinjiang region as genocide. I believe the seriousness and egregious character of what’s happening to Uighur Muslims and others in mainland China is reflected in the fact that senators from all caucuses and groups have sought to draw attention to what’s happening and have been so willing to work across party lines in bringing this motion forward.

I wish to extend my thanks to my caucus colleague Senator Ngo, who worked with me on the motion in the last Parliament calling for Magnitsky sanctions against Chinese officials related to this genocide, and thank him for his steadfast support when it comes to human rights.

I also would like to thank Senator McPhedran for her outreach on this matter and for agreeing to second this motion, and also being a steadfast supporter of human rights anywhere and all the time.

To my good friend Senator Jaffer, who also expressed her unreserved support, thank you for always being on the right side of history.

Also, I’d like to thank Senator Munson. I’d like to thank Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne for her unequivocal support.

I also want to thank each and every one of you in this chamber who knows that we as Canadians have to stand on the right side of these issues. The point is, this transcends politics and political agendas.

Colleagues, I agree with those who call for exercising caution where the use of the word “genocide” is concerned. It is not something to be thrown around lightly. It does come with certain legal implications for the international community, so we should turn, I think, to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide for guidance when considering whether particular actions constitute genocide.

In the present convention, genocide is defined as:

. . . any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The 1948 convention is focused on acts designed to physically destroy a particular group. Since the convention was formulated in the aftermath of the Holocaust in Europe, there’s no doubt as to the context in which the convention was drafted. There should also be no doubt that what is taking place against minority Muslims in Xinjiang at the hands of the Communist Chinese regime is in fact and undoubtedly genocide.

In order to truly appreciate the scope of what’s happening, we must go back where it began, starting by noting that the region China refers to as Xinjiang is actually Chinese-occupied East Turkistan. The region, as with all of China, is made up predominantly of Han Chinese with Uighur Muslims in the minority.

Over the years, an influx of Uighur Muslims from the regions west into the bustling manufacturing centres of the south has created increasing ethnic tension. These tensions have boiled over throughout the years, sometimes resulting in violent protests.

It was against this backdrop, according to documents obtained by the New York Post, that in 2014, President Xi Jinping launched the full force of China’s authoritarian regime against the Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in the region.

President Xi justified his actions then and since as being necessary to deal with who he describes as terrorists. So what does that look like, honourable senators? Chinese authorities immediately started rounding up Uighur Muslims, grabbing them off the streets, snatching them out of their homes, telling family members, including young children, that their loved ones were being sent to training schools and that they might never come back.

At first the Chinese government denied the existence of these internment camps, but when confronted with satellite imagery proving their existence, they referred to them as “re-education camps.” Even now Chinese officials try to claim that everyone has completed their training and has been released. But satellite images and family members of those interned say quite the contrary.

What is really happening at these camps, honourable senators? Prisoners are subjected to psychological indoctrination, physical torture, including waterboarding, sexual abuse, forced abortions and mass sterilization. There is said to be as many as 300 of these internment camps, averaging 300 acres in size, with many showing signs of expansion over the past year or so. It is believed that as many as 3 million people, or 30% of the Uighur population, are detained in these concentration camps.

Uighurs outside the camps are also victims of oppression and forced labour. A report by the Australia Strategic Policy Institute found that these forced labourers have been working for companies owned by BMW, Nike, Huawei, just to name a few.

The threat of being interned for even the slightest infraction is said to have terrorized the entire population into silence. As reported by the BBC, the region is now covered by what is termed a pervasive network of surveillance, including police checkpoints, cameras that scan everything from licence plates to individual faces, their expressions, and even discussions among these citizens. Cameras are even said to have been located monitoring individuals in their apartments and homes. It’s not just facial recognition technology that’s being used but also other biometric data, including DNA and voice recognition, with Uighurs being forced to turn over samples of these to local authorities, as well as being forced to install tracking apps on their mobile devices.

This Orwellian level of surveillance has been complemented by a reported campaign of forced sterilization as well. Documents obtained by the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights noted about 80% of all IUD placements in China took place in this region. Birth rates in the region are reported to have fallen by close to 24% over the last year. Then there are the settlement policies that have sought to swamp the local Uighur population with large numbers of Han Chinese who have been encouraged to settle in these regions.

Honourable senators, it is indisputable that this does rise to the level of genocide, according to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Yet, the communist regime of China not only expects us to believe otherwise but they continue a campaign of threats and intimidation against Western nations who dare challenge them. In some cases, some countries have been complicit in Beijing’s attempts to wipe out the Uighur population by arresting exiled Uighurs and deporting them back to China.

We should be under no illusion that the Xi regime seeks to silence us as well. They’ve threatened our colleagues in Parliament with repercussions in the past. But, honourable senators, we must not allow that to deter us. It certainly hasn’t deterred our greatest ally, the United States of America.

Several months ago, the United States Senate introduced a bipartisan resolution to hold China accountable for genocide against ethnic Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs and members of other Muslim minority groups. Two successive administrations and both the current Secretary of State and past Secretary of State have recognized that the actions of the Chinese regime constitute genocide. It is happening in full view of the world. The authoritarian state of China is committing these atrocities, these crimes against humanity, with impunity. They’re arrogant in their blatant disregard for human life and human rights, and we must not allow it to go unchecked and unnamed for what it is.

We always say “never again.” We said it after the Holocaust. And then we had Rwanda, a genocide that had such a profound impact on our friend and former colleague, the Honourable Roméo Dallaire. Former Senator Dallaire has said of what’s happening in China:

You’re either a great nation that believes in its values and in what its flag stands for, and what so many have died to defend it . . . you’re either that, or you’re not.

I couldn’t agree more with our former colleague Senator Dallaire.

We can’t say we’re a nation that defends human rights and religious freedom and then stay silent when we see what’s happening in China. We can’t stand up against Islamophobia in this country but not stand up and speak against a genocide taking place against Muslim people in another. This is not the Canadian way. Never in our history as a nation have we backed down in the face of tyranny. We shouldn’t start now. Our actions as Canadians and as parliamentarians must be reflective of our values and our long-standing reputation as defenders of human rights, religious freedom, democracy and the rule of law. We must speak out in one voice and say no, we will not allow this to happen — never again.

Honourable senators, China for far too long, this Chinese regime, has trampled freedom and democracy in Hong Kong with a boot to the throat of the people of Hong Kong. We’ve seen how they behave in terms of disregard for international law in regard to our two Michaels and other Canadian citizens. We’ve seen how they’ve been belligerent when it comes to attacking countries and neighbours like Taiwan and India. We need to speak up. We need to hold China to account. We should not be tolerant of a trading ally, of behaviour that we would never accept in our own country and as Canadians.

I hope you will all support this motion. It has taken far too long for such an obvious motion that embodies what Canada is all about and what Canadians believe in — standing up for our fellow man being trampled by tyranny and an authoritarian regime.

I don’t know what the forces are that are preventing this obvious call on behalf of my colleagues to speak up on behalf of Canadians, but we have an opportunity tonight to speak in one solid voice, to reinforce the House of Commons, to reinforce these Canadian values, and I truly call upon you to make me again proud today as a parliamentarian, standing up for those values in defence of vulnerable minorities that are being trampled by tyranny and by authoritarian oppression.

Thank you, honourable senators, very much.

Honourable senators, I speak to you tonight from the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

This debate comes in a week in which the tragic discovery of yet more mass graves — of 215 children in Kamloops — adds to the indictment of our centuries-long practice of residential schools, forced sterilization and what the former chief justice of Canada described as cultural genocide of our Indigenous peoples.

This horrifying reality of our history stands in rather cynical contrast to the tone of moral superiority and self-righteousness contained in the motion before us tonight.

Honourable senators, I rise to oppose the motion before us and would like to take a few minutes to explain why.

In doing so, I would like to address the following issues: the purpose of the motion and the context in which we receive the motion. What does voting against this motion mean, and how should the Senate of Canada deal with issues raised by it? In speaking to the purpose of this motion, I asked myself several questions to determine whether or not this was a motion I could speak to because the issues are important. The first question I asked was: Will this motion help the two Michaels?

Colleagues, on reflection, I’ve come to the conclusion that it will not help but, rather, significantly jeopardize the ongoing treatment of the two Michaels. If you read this morning’s column by John Ivison in the National Post, Ivison states how he has changed his view on how Canada should address this issue of the two Michaels and that it ultimately will involve a political solution. I would argue, colleagues, as I believe that that is true, that a political solution will not be encouraged by motions such as the one before us, and I strongly urge us not to jeopardize the fragile situation involving the negotiations with regard to the two Michaels.

The second question I posed to myself was: Will this motion inflame or dampen any anti-Asian violence in Canada? Like many senators, I share the concern of many senators and Canadians over the rise of anti-Asian violence in Canada generally, and particularly anti-Chinese violence. I believe it’s incumbent upon us, as a chamber of sober second thought, to seek to dampen the rage that many are feeling, legitimate or otherwise, and we should not adopt motions which inflame the attitudes that are present in our society.

Will this motion contribute to a better understanding of Canada’s interests in engagement with China? No. This motion is about rage, it is about raising the serious situation of our fellow compatriots in certain regions of China, but frankly it will not aid in our engagement of China on these issues or the broader context of these issues. This motion will not advance human rights in China but, rather, lead to a clampdown and a negative reaction, and it is not the way in which I believe we can successfully engage China with regard to these practices and other issues of concern that we might have.

Will this motion strengthen the ability of the Government of Canada to engage with the Government of China on bilateral and multilateral issues that are urgent for our attention? I believe, colleagues, that this motion will undermine such efforts at a time when the world has issues on which it must engage China that are important for multilateral issues but also for the bilateral issues that Canada faces in the world of today.

The motion before us suggests that the Olympics ought to be boycotted in China. I would argue that this motion and this request make the victims our athletes and the Olympic movement, and will do nothing to address the concerns that are quite heartfelt and raised in the motion, and it will undermine the polity of Olympic competition and victimize our athletes.

There have been in Question Period and in this debate itself questions of the motivation of the Government of Canada and the ability of the Government of Canada to “stand up to China.” Senator Housakos spoke of the motion before the other place in which the executive of Canada did not support the motion, and some have speculated that that is out of weakness or out of a desire on the part of the government not to engage forcefully the people in the Government of China.

Colleagues, I believe that the motion before us will, if adopted, add significantly to a deterioration of a relationship the victims of which will not be senators but, rather, the two Michaels, the ability of the communities in Canada to seek common ground and to distort our ability to speak to human rights issues with our Chinese interlocutors.

Colleagues, we are living in perilous times. The postwar era of U.S. dominance is being challenged, not in a Cold War redux, but rather the emergence of a near peer in China. This challenge to American exceptionalism comes at a particularly challenging time in the democratic life of our friends in the United States. I raise this context because surely our focus has to be how best to guide Canada’s interest in the world of today and tomorrow. Simply stimulating public rage is not enough to move forward in our interests. We are in fevered times in our relationship with China on a wide range of issues, and the motion before us does not address how best to deal with those fevered times.

What does voting against this motion mean? Certainly, for my part it does not mean that the issues raised are not important and frankly ought not to be raised with our interlocutors in China. I myself have raised them, I will continue to raise them, and I’ve raised them in the context even in the events in Kamloops today with Chinese officials. We need to find ways of engaging in a respectful fashion that demonstrates our commitment to the issues raised by Senator Housakos but does not imperil our national interests and the well-being of Canadians.

I would suggest that the Senate of Canada should deal with the issues raised in the motion and the broader context of Canada’s relationship with China that I’ve raised and do what we do best, and that is provide sober second thought and advice to the Government of Canada in engaging in a study on what should our relationship with the evolving China be in the months and years ahead. This could be a useful contribution to both public understanding and a government’s contemplation of dealing with the changing circumstances to which I referred.

I am particularly concerned with two developments taking place in the bilateral relationships between major powers in the world today: China and the United States. I fear strategic miscalculation on both parts, and I fear fevered political rhetoric which locks out the possibility of political compromise and cooperation on the issues on which we must make advances for the well-being of this planet and the relationships that are required to make progress on that.

Former President Obama said it well when he said, “. . . what’s troubling is the gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics . . . .”

Colleagues, let’s not use this motion to emphasize the smallness of politics but, rather, seek, as a Senate, to address the magnitude of our problems. Thank you.

Would Senator Harder take a question?

Certainly.

Senator Harder, you’re absolutely right; let’s address the issues at hand. We have a Chinese regime that has absolutely no standards compared to Canada when it comes to labour. We have a Chinese regime that has no standards when it comes to environmental protection, like we do in Canada. We have a Chinese regime that has no respect for intellectual property, which we do in Canada.

Fundamentally, we currently have — and you haven’t addressed the issue — a regime that has millions of minority Muslims in concentration camps who are being tortured. We have two Canadians that have been detained illegally for over 900 days. This is the issue at hand. You haven’t addressed them in your speech, other than giving us an explanation about why our government is in dialogue.

We have a current administration that has been in dialogue with the Chinese regime, continues to turn a blind eye to the egregious behaviour I’ve highlighted, and many more. I could speak for hours. Can you please pinpoint any concrete result from that dialogue and the appeasement by our government to this Chinese regime? Are the Michaels in any better shape today than they were two years ago? Are there Uighur people in China suffering any less because of it? Is China all of a sudden willing to embrace some of the values and principles that we Canadians hold dear?

And this institution called the Senate does not speak on behalf of the executive; we speak on behalf of Canadians and those values.

Could you give me concrete examples how dialogue has moved the yardsticks forward in getting this tyrannical regime to start behaving the way we expect of an ally and trading partner?

Senator Housakos, I thank you for the question. I’m going to have to respond in a broader context than your question, because you’ve used words like “appeasement” and “tyrannical regime” and other descriptions of China, which, frankly, I find totally inappropriate in the context of seeking a broader engagement.

The criticisms that you make are, frankly, not uniquely only in the reflection of one country. One could draw attention to any number of countries for which there are concerns with respect to human rights or international practices that you raise.

I, for one, am not going to, in a public platform such as the Senate of Canada, seek to condemn at the very moment I’m seeking to engage. I do not see how, colleagues, we’re going to get progress on climate action by insulting those that we wish to engage in stronger action. I do not see how we’re going to see a stronger trading regime if we do not seek partners for WTO reform from the very sources of countries that we are, with this resolution and by the rhetoric of the question, condemning.

I would also reference the actions being taken by some countries. I know in the dying days of the Trump administration the then Secretary of State made certain comments on behalf of his government with respect to what he described as “genocide,” which the Biden administration is quite rightly reviewing, because they have not concluded that the 48 convention standards have been met.

My point in responding, senator, is we should get off our high horse and seek to engage more appropriately, not bellicosely and belligerently, with countries — not just China but countries that we need to engage. I’ll leave it at that for tonight. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Senator Housakos’s motion to recognize the genocide being carried out by the People’s Republic of China against Uighur and other Turkic Muslims. I want to thank Senator Housakos for bringing this extremely important motion to the Senate.

Colleagues, the atrocities that have been happening for years now are so egregious, so disturbing in moral depravity and so pervasive in scope that they encapsulate the very definition of genocide.

The plight of the Uighur and other Turkic Muslims has aptly been described by experts as the largest mass detention of an ethno-religious minority since the Holocaust.

A non-partisan think tank, the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy, in cooperation with the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights — a leading human rights group with a contribution of more than 30 global experts and prominent human rights lawyers — published a report in March which undisputedly demonstrates that China is violating the United Nations genocide convention and committing genocide against Uighurs.

In February, in spite of the conspicuous and highly suspect absence of the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet, a unanimous vote in the other place recognized that these heinous acts perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party against Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims constituted genocide, making Canada the first country to do so after the United States.

Satellite imagery, testimony from survivors and leaked Chinese government documents paint a bleak and horrifying picture of orchestrated evil on a grand scale: an Orwellian mass state surveillance apparatus monitors their every move; outspoken Uighur leaders are killed; mosques and sacred sites are demolished; children are separated from their parents and transferred to other parts of country; parents are separated from each other, arbitrarily rounded up and forcibly detained in what the Chinese government doublespeak refers to as “re-education centres.” Survivors, however, are unequivocal in their assertion that these are, in fact, “concentration camps,” or “Chinese gulags.”

Leaked in 2019, highly classified Chinese government documents, known as the “China Cables,” confirm the sinister nature of these camps, revealing the operations manuals for mass internment and “arrest by algorithm.”

Although figures vary, at least 2 to 3 million Uighurs are estimated to have been incarcerated. Detainees are subject to systematic sexual abuse and torture, political indoctrination, forced sterilization, mandatory birth control, forced assimilation and renunciation of their faith.

Colleagues, I congratulate the Prime Minister for stating the obvious by accurately characterizing the act of genocide as “extremely loaded.” I think we can all agree with the Prime Minister when he says that such a serious allegation can only be attributed based on “facts and evidence,” and that it must be “clearly and properly justified and demonstrated.”

However, what the Prime Minister and his cabinet refuse to acknowledge is that several credible bodies and leading experts have, in fact, already engaged in precisely this very process. It was through rigorous scrutiny of the extensive available evidence and compelling witness testimonies that they were able to conclude that the atrocities being perpetrated in Xinjiang, do, in fact, constitute “crimes against humanity” and irrefutably amount to genocide.

Colleagues, the evidence is damning — so damning, in fact, that an array of government and non-government stakeholders worldwide have all declared that a genocide is taking place in Xinjiang. The list is extensive and includes, in addition to the House of Commons; the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights; not one but two consecutive U.S. administrations; the Dutch Parliament; the U.K. Parliament; the Lithuanian Parliament; prominent think tanks; leading human rights groups; a coalition of more than 30 global experts. Also prominent international human rights lawyers, among them: the Honourable Irwin Cotler, former Liberal Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the Honourable Allan Rock, former Liberal Minister of Justice and former Canadian Ambassador to the UN; the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, former Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs; as well as the Honourable Yves Fortier, renowned international lawyer, former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations and former President of the United Nations Security Council.

Colleagues, if this list is not impressive enough, there is also our esteemed and heroic former colleague and retired Lieutenant-General, the Honourable Roméo Dallaire who, as you know, witnessed first-hand the Rwanda genocide amid tragic international indifference. He, too, calls this a genocide and urges the government to act.

Colleagues, I am sadly not surprised by the spineless position adopted by the Prime Minister and his cabinet in their refusal to call this a genocide, and as we have seen time and again, they have a clear policy of appeasement vis-à-vis China, in blatant disregard of sound expert advice, national security and human rights.

As the Washington Post’s editorial board stated in its opinion published on May 16, entitled “China’s repression of Uyghurs is not only cultural, but also physical, a new report shows,” and I quote:

AFTER THE Holocaust . . . . The promise was “never again.”

Either you believe in “never again,” or you contribute to “once again.”

The message to the Prime Minister and his cabinet is, and I quote the Honourable Roméo Dallaire, who rightly said:

You’re either a great nation that believes in its values and in what its flag stands for, and what so many have died to defend it ... you’re either that, or you’re not.

Indeed, it is time for the Trudeau government to do the right thing by: recognizing that these heinous acts perpetrated by the CCP against the Uighurs constitute genocide; calling upon the International Olympic Committee to move the 2022 Olympic Games if the Chinese government continues this genocide; and imposing targeted Magnitsky sanctions against all Chinese government officials responsible or complicit in perpetrating gross human rights violations.

Canada has always been a front-runner in fighting for democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law — the very values on which this great nation was founded.

Colleagues, as the chamber of sober second thought, I believe, with deep conviction, that we have a moral duty to reaffirm this courageous and principled stance. Let us not be remembered for being subservient to cowardice, self-interest and the almighty dollar. Let us stand on the right side of history and truly honour the pledge, “never again.”

Honourable colleagues, let us not remain silent, and lend our voice to call this horrific 21st-century tragedy what it really is: a genocide. Thank you.

I move adjournment of the debate in my name. I believe I was called upon. Senator Ringuette, I believe you recognized me.

It is moved by the Honourable Senator Duncan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Woo that debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate. If you are opposed to the motion please say, “no.”

Those in favour of the motion and who are in the Senate Chamber, please say, “yea.”

Those opposed to the motion and who are in the Senate Chamber will please say, “nay.”

I believe the “nays” have it.

I see two senators rising, calling for a vote.

We are voting now? We will have to ask leave.

Is there leave for the proposed length of the bell from the senators in the Senate Chamber? If you are opposed, please say, “no.” Leave is granted to vote now.

Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Duncan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Woo that debate be adjourned until the next sitting day.

All those in favour of the motion who are —

The adjournment of the debate.

Do you want me to read the adjournment of the debate again?

All those in favour of the motion to adjourn the debate who are present in the Senate Chamber will please rise.