Canada-China Relations Committee on June 7th, 2021

[Marta Morgan]

We regularly raise with the ambassador to China issues as they arise. We remind the ambassador that Chinese government representatives, like all foreign government representatives, have a duty under international law to respect our laws and regulations and that any kind of activities that do not do that are unacceptable.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, I appreciate that.

Can you tell us whether or not any representatives, any embassy staff or any people accredited to Canada have been advised to leave or have had serious consequences for interfering with the rights and freedoms of people in Canada? Has that happened, to your knowledge?

[Marta Morgan]

Mr. Chair, we don't comment on specific diplomatic conversations, but I think it's clear that the messages that need to be conveyed are conveyed to the ambassador when issues like this arise. It's very clear that we have conveyed that Chinese government representatives have a duty under international law to respect our laws and regulations, and that includes the freedom of speech of Canadians.

There are a range of actions that can be taken. We work very closely with all of the domestic security agencies on these issues.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

You referred to serious action being taken and joint statements made with respect to matters in Hong Kong and the result of the security law and the changes to actions within Hong Kong itself. I'm wondering whether we're getting to the point where these joint statements aren't really effective. We just saw another sentencing of Jimmy Lai for another 18 months or 14 months on top of an existing sentence for participating in a demonstration that was unauthorized.

Isn't it time that we should consider Magnitsky-style sanctions against individuals responsible for this layer of oppression in Hong Kong and consider that these joint statements are not effective in actually changing any behaviour of the Chinese government in respect to Hong Kong?

[Marta Morgan]

Thank you for that question.

The Government of Canada has taken a number of actions vis-à-vis Hong Kong, both in working very closely with our partners in the G7 and in working with key allies. We have also suspended our extradition agreement with Hong Kong, and we carefully review all export permits to Hong Kong and have updated our export controls.

We are taking actions in the space where it makes sense for us to take actions there. We are working with our allies to communicate to the People's Republic of China that Hong Kong should benefit from the one country, two systems approach that was agreed to by the People's Republic of China.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Could I ask you to comment on the statement of the New Zealand foreign minister regarding the Five Eyes?

It seems to me that the Five Eyes is an intelligence-sharing arrangement with several nations, but it seems that the Five Eyes designation seems to be used for some other kind of alliance. Do you think that use of the phrase is misused in the public eye and is giving the false impression that this is a different type of activity here? “Five Eyes” names the countries clearly, but this is an intelligence-sharing operation and not more than that. Is that correct?

[Marta Morgan]

The Five Eyes is an intelligence-sharing operation, but I think the broader issue here is all the various ways in which we can work together in the various forums. Our Five Eyes counterparts are very close allies to us. They share our values. They share our commitment to democracy. They are among our closest allies, but there is also the G7. Working with the G7 through foreign ministers and through leaders is a critical alliance for us, as are our allies who work with us on the UN Human Rights Council. We need to broaden our allies. We need to have as many allies as possible.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I understand that, but doesn't the minister have a point when she says that there are two different types of alliances, and one doesn't always include the other?

[Marta Morgan]

Well, I think that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I'm afraid it will have to be a very quick answer.

[Marta Morgan]

We have a very strong intelligence-sharing relationship among Five Eyes partners. They are also strong allies in other regards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. We will go to the second round now.

Mr. Chong, you have five minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have some questions about the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Is the secretariat of this committee, and the committee itself, part of the Government of Canada?

[Marta Morgan]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair; I am not an expert on the NSICOP, but my understanding is that NSICOP is a committee of Parliament that includes members of Parliament as well as senators.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Madam Morgan.

This is the whole problem here. It is not a committee of Parliament. In fact, subsection 4(3) of the act that governs this committee states, “The Committee is not a committee of either House of Parliament or of both Houses.” In other words, NSICOP is not a parliamentary committee. It is not a committee of the House of Commons. It is not a committee of the Senate of Canada. It is not a joint committee of both bodies. It is a committee of the executive branch of government. Its secretariat sits on the Government of Canada's websites.

In fact, the website and the departmental plans are very misleading, and I would like to see that changed, because it does a great disservice to the public and to the integrity of our constitutional structures.

The title of the—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Oliphant has a point of order. I'll stop the time.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I have a concern about this line of questioning with respect to a committee of parliamentarians. It is not directly related to either the responsibility or the authority of the deputy minister who is in our presence. Also, the tone of the question is accusatory—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Come on.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

—and I don't think it is parliamentary in the way that it is being expressed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Come on, Rob.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I think that the public servants—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Genuis, as you understand, as the chair, I have to hear a point of order. It doesn't mean that I'm going to rule in favour of the point of order, but Mr. Oliphant has the right to make his argument. It's important, therefore, that you show respect to members when they make their argument and not interject when someone is doing so.

Mr. Oliphant, would you conclude, please?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Yes, and I would also humbly remind the chair that if he doesn't have control of the meeting, he has the right to adjourn the meeting, should there be an outburst from a member while someone has the floor. It is in the Standing Orders.

As I was saying, I have two issues. One, we have officials here on a very specific study. We are doing a study that relates to our work and we have invited them to come from Global Affairs Canada, from the foreign affairs area. We have the deputy minister of foreign affairs. It is not within her purview or her mandate to understand, to know or to relate to us what NSICOP is about.

The second issue I have is with the parliamentary tone, which I think is absolutely essential for us to maintain. It is decorum. The word is specifically in the Standing Orders when it comes to how a committee needs to operate and how committee members should operate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.