HANSARD: Anti-Asian Racism Private Member’s Motion and Amendment debate

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Motion No. 63, a motion that focuses on anti-Asian racism and discrimination.

I would like to first acknowledge and thank some of the organizations that are doing incredible work to support the Asian communities in fighting against anti-Asian racism. They are groups like Yarrow Intergenerational Society for Justice, Hua Foundation, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, Stand with Asians, the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, #Elimin8Hate, project 1907, and so many others. Their work is so important and they have been leading the way.

As part of the process to prepare for this debate, my office contacted a number of the organizations for input regarding this motion. They were clear in saying that instead of symbolic gestures, they want the government to take meaningful action to address the rise in anti-Asian racism. The fight against racism and discrimination is re-emerging as one of the defining struggles of our generation. We are witnessing a surge in racism, white supremacy and fascism.

There is no question that COVID-19 is fielding anti-Asian racism and xenophobia worldwide. In May 2020, the UN secretary-general said, “the pandemic continues to unleash a tsunami of hate and xenophobia, scapegoating and scare-mongering.” He called on governments to “act now to strengthen the immunity of our societies against the virus of hate.”

Vancouver saw a 717% increase in anti-Asian hate crimes and was dubbed “the anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America”. In fact, data from Statistics Canada confirm the rise in racist hate crimes is a national trend. Between 2018 and 2021, police reported hate crimes based on race and ethnicity more than doubled, to over 1,700. An Angus Reid survey from June of last year reported that more than half of Asian Canadians experienced a situation related to anti-Asian discrimination in the last year and more than one in four reported this occurred all the time or frequently. These numbers are startling, even though we know that the true number of all incidents is much higher than those reported.

Advocacy groups warn that many of those experiencing hate crimes never report it to the police. Many who have tried to access police services experienced disappointment, felt invalidated or felt that no adequate support was provided. The government must work in partnership with NGOs to help bridge this gap. There has to be stable core funding for NGOs who are doing the heavy lifting in the community and supports must be in place that are culturally specific and language accessible. 

Too many victims are suffering silently and in isolation. They should know that they are not alone, that they would be supported as they recover from this traumatic experience and that if the victims come forward, every effort will be made to ensure that there will be consequences for the perpetrators. Another measure to encourage victims to come forward is that the government must do its part by ensuring that there will be consequences for the offenders. Even among the small proportion that is reported to police, few cases result in charges being laid. Between 2013 and 2018, 82% of hate crimes did not result in a charge after being reported to police. This must change.

To send a clear message that Canada will not tolerate hate-motivated crimes means we have to put the full force of the law against the offenders. That would require a dedicated hate crime prosecution unit with adequate resources and teeth. To further this work, the government should facilitate a national community engagement process so that people of Asian descent with lived realities of anti-Asian racism and systemic barriers to inclusion can come together to share the experiences and discuss action that must be taken to address it. 

If the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is to conduct a review of anti-Asian hate crimes and hate-motivated incidents across the country as suggested by the motion, it should be tasked with providing actionable recommendations and guidance to government bodies and law enforcement on reporting, addressing and preventing hate crimes and hate-motivated incidents.

It is time that we move beyond symbolic gestures. The House unanimously passed two NDP motions to tackle anti-Asian racism in March of 2021. These motions got passed, but there was never any follow-up action from the government. For example, it has not hosted a federal-provincial-territorial meeting to discuss the rise in hate crimes in Canada and to coordinate our collective efforts and identified best practices to countering this trend. There has been no action on the creation of properly funded dedicated hate crime units in every community in Canada. 

There are also no national standards for identifying and recording all hate incidents and their dispensation in the justice system. The government has not worked in collaboration with non-profits to facilitate the reporting of hate crimes in Canada's anti-racism strategy 2019-22, and the government's anti-racism policies and programs do not specifically target anti-Asian racism. What is the point of passing these motions when follow-up action is not taken? There is simply no accountability.

I reached out to the member for Scarborough North with amendments to his motions that would ensure meaningful action and accountability measures. Sadly, he rejected all of them. 

Words without action are meaningless. The government must do better, for every single attack is aimed at stripping us of our sense of safety and dignity. It is a clear message to say that we are not wanted, that we do not belong. For me, this is not just theoretical. It is personal. 

Four generations of my family have suffered racist attacks. My grandfather suffered silently so many years ago by himself. He was told that he had to move to the back of the bus. He was told that he had to get off the bus. He was told repeatedly that he did not belong. My parents and I experienced racial slurs. We were called names. We were made fun of. We were just not wanted. 

Growing up in this country, that is what it felt like for me. I have to say, to my dismay, my daughter just this year on her way to school was spat on, and somebody yelled racial slurs at her. When she told me this, my heart sank. History repeats itself over and over again, so to that end, this must stop.

Therefore, I move that the motion be amended with the following: a) by replacing the word “hate” with “racism” in paragraph (a)(i) and adding after the words “racial discrimination” the following, “and take meaningful action to combat the ongoing increase in anti-Asian hate crimes and hate-motivated incidents, including the creation of and funding for a dedicated hate crime prosecution unit”; b) in paragraph (a)(ii) by adding “through concrete actions and a substantive commitment of resources including but not limited to support for victims of hate that are culturally specific and language-accessible”; c) in paragraph (a)(iii) by adding the word “unique” after the words “highlight the”, adding the word “anti-Asian” before “racism”, adding the word “systemic” before “barriers” and adding the words “through a national community engagement process” after the words “people of Asian descent”; d) in paragraph (b) by adding the words “and provide actionable recommendations and guidance to government bodies and law enforcement on reporting, addressing and preventing hate crimes and hate-motivated incidents” following the words “across the country”; e) by adding paragraph (c) “provide a progress update to the House on actions taken by the government on the following specific calls for action outlined in the two unanimous consent motions to tackle anti-Asian hate passed in the House on March 22 and 24, 2021 (i) host a federal-provincial-territorial meeting to discuss the rise in hate crimes in Canada and to coordinate our collective efforts and identified best practices to countering this trend, (ii) create and properly fund dedicated hate crime units in every community in Canada, (iii) establish national standards for identifying and recording all hate incidents and their dispensation in the justice system, (iv) work in collaboration with non-profits to facilitate the reporting of hate crimes, and (v) include “anti-Asian racism” in Canada's anti-racism strategy 2019-22 and all anti-racism policies and programs; and (f) by adding paragraph (d) “renew Canada's anti-racism strategy through engagement with stakeholders and those with lived experiences, and table the action plan that specifically addresses anti-Asian racism within 12 months.”

It is critical that everyone stand firm against the forces that represent racism, white supremacy and fascism, whether they are being propagated by an individual or an organization. This has no place in public dialogue and no place on our streets.

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 unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent. Since the sponsor is not present to give his consent, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

The hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I know we are not supposed to reference whether or not a member is in the House. However, I noticed you referenced that the member had left the chamber just now. Is that proper?

I can reference it when it comes to getting consent from a member.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

Mr. Speaker, then it is okay to reference that the member for Scarborough North just left the chamber.

The Chair can reference it for an amendment, but a member in the chamber cannot. The Chair reserves that right when it comes to getting consent for a motion.

On the same point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that what she has done is not appropriate. Being inside the chamber or outside the chamber is up to a member.

The member opposite has no idea why the member is here or outside the chamber, and I find it disrespectful for her to make such a motion given that it is private members' hour and the member has brought forward a wonderful motion.

On that same point of order, the hon. member for Vancouver East has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the government member takes offence to the fact that I have a point of order to get clarity on the rules of the House. It is my right to do that. He says it is not my right to do so, so I demand that he retract that comment and apologize.

I think I was clear enough when I said that the Chair can reference whether somebody is here or not but members cannot. I apologize if I was not clear on that. 

We should continue. I do not see any movement from the parliamentary secretary, nor would I expect any because of the clarification I tried to give as the Chair. 

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

Mr. Speaker, the government member is shouting things at me and is still calling “shame” as though I have no rights in the House. I was duly elected to the House, and just like anyone else, I can get up and ask for clarity from the Speaker, as I have done. There is—

We are descending way too far into debate on what we should or should not be doing on a private member's motion. 

I will let the hon. parliamentary secretary have the last very short point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want the record to reflect that I am the only one raising my voice inside the chamber. The member is doing the same thing. 

All right. Maybe it has just been a long day.

Let us move on to the next speaker, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Motion No. 63, which calls upon our government to condemn anti-Asian hate and all forms of racism and racial discrimination. The proposed motion seeks to address the troubling rise in anti-Asian racism and hate that this country has seen over the past several years. 

I thank my hon. colleague, Mr. Shaun Chen, the member of Parliament for Scarborough North, for bringing forward this motion and for raising this issue—

I have a point of order.

The member cannot refer to the name of the member presenting the motion, which I think is probably what the member for Vancouver East is standing on.

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. It is about clarifying the rules of the House to see whether we are allowed to reference members by name.

Maybe we will have the parliamentary secretary start over without that reference.