I think that is a question that gets to the heart of the decisions before you with the conflict act, the current ethics regime and even the global trade issues that Ottawa is confronted with.
I think it's helpful to raise the example of what is happening in the government of Kier Starmer right now. There's a controversy reported on every day by British media with regard to an alleged case of Chinese interference, of insiders getting information on critics of China and allegedly providing it through the Ministry of State Security to high levels of the Chinese Communist Party.
I noted that powerful American lawmakers were so disconcerted with reports coming out of Britain that they sent a letter to the British ambassador, warning that it appeared that Britain's government had stepped away from or potentially politically intervened in a prosecution around the timing of China's seeking to construct what's called a “mega-embassy” in Britain, which raises certain concerns.
To your question, honourable member, yes, if you're looking at global trade and the potential of slave-produced goods from Xinjiang coming into Canada, this is a very pertinent issue. I reported a letter sent from then senator Marco Rubio and others to the then minister of trade, Mary Ng, in which the U.S. lawmakers expressed concern that it seemed that goods were being transshipped through Canada into the United States using subterfuge. The question, again, is whether Canada was holding up its end of its deal with the United States and Mexico to bar trade in slave-produced goods.
Indeed, I think the question you raise is whether there is a conflict with regard to how a whole government might take action on a bill, whether we're talking about a bill such as the one put forward by MP Michael Chong or whether some people in the British Parliament, in wanting to keep trade between Britain and Beijing running at full steam, might have intervened in a prosecution about espionage inside Westminster. That's a very important question.