Debates of Dec. 10th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Proposed special committee on Canada-China relations

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous response, Canada is very concerned about the situation in Hong Kong. We are particularly concerned about the safety and security of the 300,000 Canadians who are there. We stand with the people of Hong Kong and we call upon China at every opportunity to ensure their ability for peaceful assembly, their freedom of expression and their democratic rights.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the minister, especially when she makes reference to the collaboration Canada has been engaged with in regard to other nations around the world, which recognize what is taking place and have been exceptionally supportive of the actions we have taken to date.

The minister made reference to the standing committees of the House of Commons, and those standing committees are able to look into all sorts of matters. When I read the motion that has been brought forward to us to vote on today, I could not help but think that there is no reason an issue of this nature could not be addressed by a standing committee. If the members of the standing committee want to make it three days or three weeks, it is up to them to do so.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course committees are independent and make up their own minds and decide what they will study and for how long, so it is not for me to suggest what they do, but as my hon. colleague mentions, there is the foreign affairs and international development committee and there is the special committee of parliamentarians on security and intelligence. Those seem like very robust vehicles for studying these issues. There is even the Standing Committee on International Trade, which can look into some of the issues that my colleague from Durham mentioned.

This place, this House, this Parliament has many mechanisms for parliamentarians to bring forward issues and study them and pose questions of the government in a way that allows them to go very in-depth. In the best interests of Canadians, there is an opportunity there, should the committee members decide this is something they would like to pursue.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin by making some opening remarks, since I once said my farewells in this place. Indeed, I once said my goodbyes to my colleagues in the House of Commons because life was taking me in another direction. Life took me to the National Assembly of Quebec, where I sat for 13 years before becoming the registrar of the Rimouski cegep. As it happens, fate brought me back here.

I am now delivering a maiden speech as a new-again member of the House of Commons. I am very pleased to be here and I want to thank the people of the riding of Montarville for placing their trust in me on October 21.

I was even more surprised to be coming back to the House of Commons, this time to represent the riding of Montarville. The member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères is an excellent member, so I would never have encroached on him. Sainte-Julie, the most populous municipality in the provincial Quebec riding of Verchères, is located in the federal riding of Montarville, where I was asked to run. It certainly seems like it was a good fit, because not only am I enjoying myself in this new riding, but also the people of Montarville seemed to think that I was a good choice.

Here I am, back in the House, greeting colleagues, congratulating everyone on their election, and telling them I look forward to working with them. As the Leader of the Bloc Québécois has already said, on October 21, Quebeckers called on us to work together. I think today, with the Conservative Party's motion, is our first test of that. I will get back to that shortly.

To close out my opening remarks, I will simply say that when I said my goodbyes to the House, it was located in Centre Block. When it was closed and the House was temporarily moved to this chamber, I remember thinking that I would never have sat in this new House. Fate sometimes has some very strange twists in store for us.

In any event, I will repeat that I am very pleased to be here and to have the opportunity today to speak to this first test of collaboration being proposed by the Conservative Party. What are we being asked to do as part of this first test?

Setting aside the words, which I will come back to in a moment, what we are being asked to do is to create an ad hoc committee on Canada-China relations so that we can work together to come up with ways to improve those relations.

I have to say that this seems like a good idea. It seems like a good idea, in a minority government, to try to collaborate with all the political parties. It seems like a good idea to sit down in a parliamentary committee and try to find solutions to a real problem. No one can deny that Canada-China relations, which were excellent until recently, have deteriorated considerably over the past few years. We can speak at length about the reasons the relationship has deteriorated, but there is no denying that Canada-China relations have deteriorated.

There is a problem. Once we become aware of the problem what do we do? We can take the the Liberal government's approach of late and close our eyes and leave the Canadian ambassador to China post vacant in Beijing for eight months. Yes, I said eight months.

That is not a good approach to finding solutions. A minority government needs the good will of the whole House. We have to sit down together and look for solutions. That is essentially the spirit of the motion before us.

I will address each element of the motion in turn. Once we have a good understanding of the spirit of the motion, we will have to consider the letter of the motion more thoroughly.

That, in light of the prolonged diplomatic crisis with China, the House appoint a special committee with the mandate to conduct hearings to examine and review all aspects of the Canada–China relationship including, but not limited to, consular, economic, legal, security and diplomatic relations:

So far, so good. That is basically what I just said.

(a) that the committee be composed of 12 members, of which six shall be government members, four shall be from the official opposition, one shall be from the Bloc Québécois and one from the New Democratic Party;

That is pretty much how standing committees are composed, so that is fine, too. Nobody is going to argue against that.

(b) that changes in the membership of the committee shall be effective immediately after notification by the whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

That is a standard practice. There are no issues so far.

(c) that membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

Once again, this is a standard practice. There is nothing to say about that.

(d) that the members shall be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than January 15, 2020;

That seems logical to me.

(e) that the Clerk of the House shall convene an organization meeting of the said committee for no later than January 20, 2020;

This too seems logical. As members can see, everything is fine so far. It reminds me of the joke about a man who falls from the 20th story of a building. As he is falling, he passes the 10th floor. When someone there asks him if he is okay, he says that he is fine so far.

(f) that the committee be chaired by a member of the government party;

I do not see what the Liberal Party would have against that. Once again, so far so good.

(g) that notwithstanding Standing Order 106(2), in addition to the Chair, there be one vice-chair from the official opposition, one vice-chair from the Bloc Québécois and one vice-chair from the New Democratic Party;

In the spirit of co-operation, I must say that this seems logical. So far, so good.

(h) that quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118 and that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government;

Once again, that is the usual practice. So far, so good.

(i) that the committee be granted all of the powers of a standing committee, as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada;

If we want to really examine the Canada-China relationship, it makes sense that we must eventually be able to travel. So far, so good.

(j) that the committee have the power to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings; and

I think that also makes sense.

I have read nearly all the points in the motion. I do not see how any of those points should pose a problem for the government. Only paragraph (k) remains.

(k) that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety, and the Canadian ambassador to China be ordered to appear as witnesses from time to time as the committee sees fit.

I will digress for a moment to say that I assume our Chinese friends are listening carefully to today's deliberations. I suspect they are very interested in what we are saying. I have to tell them that there may be problems between Canada and China. We need to examine this more closely to come up with solutions.

There are also internal problems in Canadian politics. Unfortunately, parties sometimes seek to score political points. Without ascribing any motives to my Conservative colleagues, I believe that item (k) shows this desire to score political points because it would compel the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Canada's ambassador to China to testify. This would likely lead the Liberal Party to oppose the motion, resulting in the Conservative Party being outraged. How would that help us improve relations between China and Canada? That would not help in the least.

The Conservative Party would probably score some points with the public by saying how mean the Liberals were for rejecting such a reasonable motion. I read each item in the motion and they are all perfectly reasonable. There is absolutely no reasonable reason for refusing this motion. It just makes good sense. However, by including item (k), the Conservatives clearly want to embarrass the Liberal government. This will result in the Liberal government saying that this motion is unacceptable and that they cannot compel the Prime Minister to appear. The Conservatives will answer: “Why not?” Is it not up to the committee members to decide who will appear before them? It seems to me that they should have left it up to the committee members to decide who is on their witness list.

Why try to embarrass the government by demanding three specific witnesses, namely the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian ambassador to China? If this was an attempt to ensure that this eminently reasonable motion would not be adopted, it was not a very sensible way of going about it. If the ultimate goal is to find solutions to the problem of the strained relations between China and Canada, we need to sit down and come up with solutions.

As I said at the start, this is a test of our collaboration skills. It is primarily a test for the Liberal government, of course, but for the Conservative Party as well. If the Conservatives would agree to withdraw item (k), I do not think anyone in the House would object to adopting this motion unanimously. We have an obligation to discharge the mission given to us by Quebeckers and Canadians, and that is to make Parliament work. Again, this is our first test. I am calling on the Liberal government and the official opposition to rise to the challenge that the official opposition itself just issued. It will require maturity and a sense of responsibility.

As the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois said during a conversation we had just moments ago, we have to consider which is likely to have a more detrimental impact on Canada-China relations: the creation of a committee tasked with finding ways to improve relations between our two countries, or a statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs about how Beijing is treating the two detained Canadians in a totally arbitrary fashion?

When the government accuses the opposition of trying to add fuel to the fire with this motion, I think it should take a good look in the mirror and realize that, after cutting through the rhetoric, there is nothing unreasonable in this motion. I read it.

I therefore call on the government to step up and show some maturity. It needs to give the parties in the House a chance to work together. If the official opposition truly wants to work together, it should make its motion less of challenge for the government and remove item (k). We should work together and come up with a list of witnesses. If the list must include the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian ambassador, then so be it. The opposition should not give the government an opportunity to reject the whole thing and throw the baby out with the bathwater by demanding that item (k) be included.

In the four minutes I have left, I will talk about Canada-China relations. Canada, which always presents itself to the world as a paragon of virtue, has always stood up for human rights, up until Jean Chrétien's former Liberal government decided to focus on promoting trade. The argument was that we could use trade to get other countries to adopt our way of life. The standard of living would improve, followed by increased consumption and more respect for human rights.

Two decades later, the only conclusion can we come to on this strategy, given the tense relations between China and Canada these days, is that this may not have been the best choice. We are at quite the impasse right now. I think there were good intentions behind this policy change brought in by the Jean Chrétien Liberal government. I think there was a profound belief that trade would bring about change. Invoking human rights repeatedly was not really going to change things. It was thought that change would come through trade. The impasse we currently find ourselves in shows that may not have been the right path to follow. What path should we take? I believe in the collective wisdom of this institution to find the right path.

That is why I fundamentally believe that aside from item (k), the motion moved by the official opposition is an invitation to appeal to the collective wisdom of this institution so that we may find the right path to improve relations with China, which had always been good. We only have to look at the legacy of Henry Norman Bethune, or the legacy of the current Prime Minister's father, which led to excellent Canada-China relations until quite recently.

I urge the Liberal government to change its attitude towards the Conservative motion, and I urge the official opposition to withdraw item (k) so that we can unanimously adopt this motion and draw on the best in each and every one of us in order to improve political and trade relations with the juggernaut that is the People's Republic of China.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Montarville on his re-election and return to the House.

As I listened to his very thoughtful presentation, I wondered whether or not he sees the possibility of this same work being done through the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is yet to be constituted. It would be able to do exactly those things as a priority, if the committee so willed to do that. We believe the committee should be the master of its own house.

Would the Bloc Québécois be open to the possibility of this sort of work being done collegially and collaboratively at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, naturally, the answer to that question is yes.

Can the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development do that kind of thing? The answer is yes, but this should not be used as an excuse to oppose the Conservative motion. Let me explain why.

First, there is no guarantee that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which, as my colleague noted, is yet to be constituted, will want to do that work.

Second, I believe that the Conservative Party's intention in moving this motion on the one-year anniversary of the imprisonment of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor was to highlight the importance that this Parliament places not only on the detainment of these two Canadians, whom we hope to see released as soon as possible, but also on relations between China and Canada.

I think we need to see the essence of this motion as a desire for us to work together to find solutions for improving relations between China and Canada, which were always excellent until very recently. I am hoping that the collective wisdom of the House will yield solutions.

We should not just say that we will look into this once the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is constituted. Our collaboration skills are being put to the test today, and I urge my esteemed colleagues to rise to the challenge.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the importance of committees being formed. The Liberals are ignoring one issue, which is that a committee is formed at the will of the House. The issues that deal with China cross the lines of so many committees. For example, the trade committee cannot deal with human rights and the human rights committee cannot deal with trade. That is the problem.

The member talked about paragraph (k). In the previous Parliament, the Liberals did everything they could to make sure the Prime Minister or certain ministers or certain people did not testify before committee. We want to make sure they do testify. The member is predicting that their answers will be such that they will embarrass the Prime Minister. How the Prime Minister testifies in front of a committee is in his hands. He could come off as a rock star if he so chooses, depending on how he presents his information to the committee. However, it is very important that we have the information so that we understand what went wrong.

In light of that, how does the member see this unfolding if the committee decided not to have the Prime Minister testify? How would we get the details from the appropriate ministers and the Prime Minister?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns. They are legitimate. This is a case of being once bitten, twice shy. The official opposition has experienced the cavalier attitude and even the arrogance of a Liberal majority government that refused to have the Prime Minister appear in committee.

From a technical point of view, the composition we are talking about seems to be essentially equal. The opposition would have some clout. I understand this concern, which I think is legitimate. However, I want members to understand that I am concerned that the official opposition is giving the Liberal government an excuse to oppose the motion, which could kill an initiative that, at first glance, seems very positive to me.

Was item (k) added with the noble goal of ensuring that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian ambassador in Beijing would appear before the committee or was the real goal to make the government look bad?

Only the Conservatives can answer that question. However, I would hope that everyone will take up the challenge of co-operation that the Conservatives themselves issued to us today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I myself am a returning member after, in my case, an involuntary absence from the last Parliament.

I did enjoy the member's comments very much. The member went through the points very thoroughly. I have a concern with paragraph (k). I would invite the member to look at the last five words, “as the committee sees fit”. Would that not give the committee the opportunity to decide whether to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Public Safety and the ambassador appear at committee? Does that not give the opportunity instead for someone to make excuses for not coming, as was pointed out? At least the individual could appear but it is in the control of the committee. As the member pointed out, there would be six government members and six opposition members. Would that not give the member some comfort?

I do share the member's concerns. If we want to work together and have to work together, I do not want a combat zone where the opposition is set up against the government. If we are going to try to find solutions, then we should set the proper tone in the committee. Do those last several words not give the member some comfort?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is absolutely right. That is an important safeguard. It would indeed be up to the committee to decide when to have the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian ambassador to China appear.

The fact is that item (k) requires the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian ambassador to China to appear as witnesses, but the committee members may, in their wisdom, decide that it would be better to call the Minister of Foreign Affairs than the Prime Minister, or vice versa. Why not let the committee members decide which potential witnesses they think they need to hear from?

Once again, I understand my Conservative Party colleagues' concerns. However, I worry that this element could be used as an excuse to derail an initiative that I see as extremely positive.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Montarville for his excellent speech. It was very interesting.

My colleague reiterated the importance of human rights. He also mentioned that it has been one year today since Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were detained in China. It is a sad anniversary. He also mentioned that the Liberal government waited eight months to appoint an ambassador to China, a key diplomatic post to facilitate the release of these two Canadians.

As my colleague has good knowledge of foreign affairs, I would like to ask his opinion and whether he recalls there ever being a time when a government waited that long during a diplomatic crisis to appoint an ambassador to a country as important as China.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Joliette for overstating my knowledge of foreign affairs. I do indeed have some knowledge of these matters, but I do not think I am unique in that regard. I do know for sure, however, that this is an unusual case. In the context of a major diplomatic crisis between two countries, there must be an interlocutor with whom to engage.

Furthermore, if I were a member of the government in Beijing watching as Canada failed to appoint an ambassador for eight months, I would think that resolving the disputes between our two countries was not all that important to Canada, whether it be the trade disputes involving canola and pork or the human rights situation, specifically the two Canadians in prison. If I were a Chinese leader, I would be wondering how this government could behave with such cavalier disregard in the middle of a diplomatic crisis.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we continue, I would like to quickly remind hon. members to address the Speaker in the course of their presentations, comments or speeches because this allows the Speaker to let the member know how much time is left. Members must use the third person and address their comments to the Chair for the benefit of everyone in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. John's East.

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

Mr. Speaker, this being my first full speech in the House, I would like to thank the people of St. John's East for giving me the honour of representing them once again in the House of Commons. I had an involuntary sabbatical during the last Parliament, but I am very happy to be back again. I appreciate the honour given me by the people of St. John's East and I thank them for it.

This is a very important resolution that has been brought before the House and I want to thank the member for Durham for bringing it forward. I think there has been some discussion about the appropriateness of having a special committee in this situation. I think the member and the opposition, through their opposition day motion, have brought forth something that is of concern to many Canadians.

The incarceration of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor has continued for a full year after an arbitrary arrest. They experience very severe conditions of want and a failure to have proper advice from legal counsel or contact with their family. This is a horrendous situation that I think Canadians from coast to coast to coast are very concerned about.

Canadians are also concerned about a lot of other issues, not only in terms of our relationship with China but also about what is going on inside of China. The protests and demonstrations in Hong Kong have been front page and television news for many months now. Canadians are concerned as to what is happening to the people of Hong Kong, Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, human rights in Hong Kong and the willingness of the Government of China to follow through on its “one country, two systems” promise to the world. That is something that we want our government to be fully involved in, as has been pointed out.

We have had a significant problem, only in the last year or so, with respect to diplomatic endeavours. When Mr. McCallum was appointed to China as our ambassador, things were very different. That turned out to be a very inappropriate appointment, partly because of the inappropriateness of the things that Mr. McCallum has said. It is interesting to notice that relationships such as Canada had with China can go south so quickly, and the Liberal government was not able to manage that relationship effectively.

We have seen in the last election that the Canadian public also decided to pass judgment on the actions of the Canadian government and the Prime Minister. The public did not think it was a good idea for the Liberals to have total control over Parliament and they wanted to give them a little help. The Canadian public, in its wisdom, said that Liberals should not have a majority. They felt that there should be a better balance and an opportunity to co-operate and that the Liberals should have to listen to the other side and be willing to work collaboratively to make Canada work best both internally and in our dealings with other countries, in this case China.

This motion would actually put into effect the kind of collaboration that Canadians wanted to see in the government in Canada. We still have a Liberal government and we still have the same Prime Minister, but we also have other voices at the table that are going to be able to have some influence.

The member for Montarville just went through details of every section of this proposed committee, including the structure of the committee and what the mandate is going to be in terms of our entire relationship with China. It is not just about the two individuals who are incarcerated, but also our trade relationship. The motion states, “all aspects of the Canada-China relationship including, but not limited to consular, economic, legal, security and diplomatic relations.”

That is an opportunity for a special committee to look at that whole relationship and see if there are ways that we can improve that relationship beyond what is being done now and in different ways. There may well be things that are being overlooked. There may be other opportunities. If the Prime Minister comes, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs comes, or our ambassador comes, it may be a way for our committee, through its actions and in the proper tone, to set up a new relationship and send a signal to China about what we want and how we might achieve it in ways that we could not do in any other way.

I cannot pre-judge what will happen in the committee. I have to say we have some concerns. In the speech from the member for Montarville, we heard hints that we do not necessarily want to see an opportunity for a political battle between the opposition and the government or see finger pointing. That is not necessarily going to help the circumstances, so we have to be careful about that. As this motion goes forward today, I look forward to hearing from other members of the Conservative Party to see how they plan to do that.

It is one thing to be critical of the government's failures over the past couple of years, in particular over the last year with this particular crisis. Those failures are certainly obvious in many cases, including the failure to appoint an ambassador in a timely fashion. There are the difficulties that we have had with trying to ensure that there are appropriate responses. The Liberals did not move quickly enough to assure the Chinese government that our actions with respect to the arrest of Ms. Meng Wanzhou were appropriate in the context of our treaty relationship with United States. That is something that could and should have been done very quickly, and there are other criticisms that can well be pointed against the government's actions over the past year.

However, at this point in time we have to decide how we move forward in our relationship with China. Is it possible to come up with ways and means of doing this that have not yet been tried? Obviously, whatever has been tried so far has not worked, so there is an opportunity here to find ways that might work and to develop ways to go forward.

One suggestion along the way is that perhaps we can come up with a protocol that might be agreed upon in terms of consular work in dealing with individuals who are arrested in China for various reasons, a protocol as to how Canada and China would deal with these matters. We similarly have an extradition treaty with the United States, but we might want to find ways of dealing with issues as they arise in terms of how prisoners are treated, to what extent they have access to legal counsel and other aspects. Moving forward, we can hardly expect them to follow our laws in all respects, but we could have an agreement as to how matters could go forward.

We have had other suggestions come forward. I do not know whether they were testing the waters, but there were suggestions that a prisoner exchange might be a good way of dealing with this. I do not think that was a very helpful suggestion, frankly. We are not dealing with the same kind of circumstances, and the analogy to the Cold War is not a good one. We do not want to see what is going on here between Canada and China and what is happening with China and the world developing into a standoff like the Cold War, which took place for such a long period of time.

The opportunity that this motion presents is for Canada and China to reset a relationship going forward to avoid some of the negative consequences that could come about. This is a positive opportunity but one that we have to be careful and cautious in implementing. It is going to require some significant restraint on the part of the official opposition and all the opposition in dealing with this issue.

We have to recognize that diplomatic relations are just that, diplomatic, and they have to be carried out in a spirit of willingness by all members in this House who might participate in this committee, and by all parties in this House, and that must be kept in mind in the operation of such a committee. Without that spirit of collaboration, there could be a danger that the relationship could be harmed. It is a leap of faith of the members of this House, a test of the notion of collaboration and a test of the maturity of this Parliament to be able to operate such a committee in a way that meets the needs of Canada in trying to find a solution, but it is also an opportunity for constructive criticism or at least for attempting to find out what does work and what does not work.

It is a positive and optimistic proposal. I do not think it is naive. I think we have to be concerned about not being too naive. We are dealing with a significant country with a very powerful place in the world and a very long history.

As was pointed out by the member for Durham when introducing his motion, we do have a long history of Canadian-Chinese relationships, as has been mentioned by a couple of members. Dr. Norman Bethune was very influential within China and very well respected by China. His work has been acknowledged in Canada. In fact, in Montreal, we will find a statue of him not far from Concordia University. If members are there, they should have a look at this very fine statue. We do have that history. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity of making it a positive part of future relations with China.

We have a complex relationship and significant trade relations with China. We have seen how disruption in that trade can so quickly and seriously affect Canadians, particularly, as we have seen, Canadian farmers with canola, soybeans, peas, beef and pork, which cost many millions of dollars and are still costing many millions of dollars to Canadians in the case of canola. Some of these issues have been resolved, but others are still outstanding. It is an important relationship and something we have to take very seriously.

It is a complex relationship, particularly as China has a political system that we are not satisfied with in terms of how it deals with human rights. We are not satisfied with the situation in Hong Kong. We are very sympathetic with the concerns of the demonstrators, and on their opportunity and desire to have peaceful demonstrations to seek influence on the future course of what will happen in Hong Kong. We recognize and support their efforts to have their own say in what is going on. We decry some of the tactics used by the police forces in dealing with these demonstrations.

Also, from a human rights perspective, concern for the Uighurs is extremely high in Canada. We have to find ways to put pressure in whatever way possible to seek to resolve some of these issues. We have long-standing concerns about Tibet as well.

These issues have been there for a long time and are not going to be fixed by this committee. I do not think we could have too high expectations. However, we can try to find a way to ensure that Canada is doing everything it can in this relationship to seek the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor as soon as possible. Dealing with this issue on the anniversary of their incarceration is paramount in my mind and, I think, in the minds of many Canadians, and certainly the families of these two individuals. All Canadians see this as something that needs to be resolved. One of these individuals is a Canadian diplomat who is on leave from the foreign service. He was working with the International Crisis Group, which is an important international agency. It is highly problematic that he or any Canadian should be subject to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment such as has happened.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that we will support this opposition motion with the cautions that have been laid down by me in my remarks here today.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too will take advantage of this time to thank the people of Scarborough—Guildwood for electing me this eighth time. I continue to be honoured by their respect shown.

I will also take this opportunity to welcome my friend back. We enjoyed some interesting times on the defence committee together when he was previously here.

Setting aside for a moment the gratuitous, and in my judgment, unnecessary commentary on the part of the member for Durham and the overreach in the motion, it does speak to a central issue of this Parliament and many future parliaments going forward, which is the relationship between Canada and China.

In my judgment, China is the colonial power of the 21st century. It is saying to the world, and particularly to Canadians, not to involve themselves in the Uighur situation, nor the Tibetan situation, that they are internal matters. It is saying that the Hong Kong situation is an internal matter, that the Taiwanese situation is an internal matter, that the Falun Gong situation is an internal matter, and the Christians, that is an internal matter. The list goes on and on.

Currently, we are dealing with the most difficult situation with respect to Huawei. Four out of the Five Eyes countries are saying that they will not allow Huawei into their countries. These are issues that need to be faced not only by government but also by Parliament.

Would the hon. member agree that while this may not be a cold war, it is in some respects an asymmetric war with a front on intellectual property, academics, trade, human rights and pretty well the entire panoply of relational elements between one nation and another as China asserts its colonial status?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for his kind remarks and welcoming me back. We worked well together and had some good differences but also many agreements on the defence committee. It is good to be able to engage here on the floor of Parliament with the hon. member.

The member raises a good point. This is obviously a philosophical point, and I do not know if we are able to resolve that today, but we know that China is anxious to participate in the world. He has described it as colonialism. As a label, that may not help very much to deal with what is going on. However, if China seeks to engage with the world, it also has to show that it understands the world and can be influenced by the world. Progress happens, sometimes slowly, but obviously when one wants to engage with someone, one cannot always dictate the terms of engagement.

China has to be influenced by the countries it is dealing with. Its citizens who work and live in Canada and all around the world are listening and learning as well. In Hong Kong, we see a good example of how that engagement takes on a different point of view. Where it goes and how fast it goes is a matter of hard work being done and engagement. However, if China wants to engage with the world, it is also going to have to understand as time goes on that it is a two-way street and things will have to change at some point in time.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for St. John's East on his speech and his re-election.

At this time, China looms large in foreign policy around the world. China is asserting itself as an economic power.

Does my colleague not think that the diplomatic solution to China should rely more on a multilateral solution rather than the current bilateral one? In the last Parliament, we saw that Canada is retreating from multilateralism and seems to be taking the U.S. approach of relying on bilateralism.

Should the solution not involve more multilateralism?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We are talking here about the Canada-China relationship, but it is obviously in the context of how we solve it.

One of the solutions, I believe, is a greater engagement in multilateralism. The Minister of International Development spoke in detail about some of the work with other countries on this file. I think that is an important step along the way. Also, we see what is happening with the instability of the relationship from time to time between Canada and the United States, such as some difficulties in NATO and not being sure of where the United States exactly stands on issues. I think it is time that Canada, in some respects, acted more independently internationally through multilateral development and working with other countries. Canada could be a stronger force in the world's circumstances through multilateral efforts.

The member is absolutely right and I look forward to hearing more about that at our committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a dean of the chamber with a great deal of experience. I have always had a great deal of respect for the fine work that standing committees have done over the years, even when I sat in opposition. There are a lot of incredible contributions from all sides of the House.

Given that we have these standing committees, looking forward to the next six months or years ahead, does the member believe that anything has been lost at all in regard to not providing standing committees the opportunity at least to debate this issue or have that discussion? I am thinking of future standing committee meetings. Should the House be providing more direction? Does he have any thoughts on that issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly, I am happy that we have very useful standing committees on a number of matters, many of which touch on the Canada-China relationship. Unfortunately, when we are dealing with something as substantial as this that is so prominent right now, the best way to deal with it, I believe, is a special committee.

I have had lots of experience on standing committees, whether it be the justice committee, public safety committee or defence committee. A standing committee could do a study, but there are a lot of other things that are going on at the same time in defence, foreign affairs, and in other departments.

To focus on this particular issue, I think, requires a special committee with a particular focus on a problem that we are faced with to come up with some way forward that involves the collaboration of all members. I think a special committee is a good fit for this particular type of issue and the prominence that it has right now.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his very thoughtful comments and his answer to my hon. Liberal colleague's question around why a special committee is needed.

I wonder if my colleague could also comment on what he thinks the ramifications would be if this challenge, this strained relationship, is not resolved.

I am from Manitoba, and we have a lot of canola producers. I know there is an impact on our producers and a greater impact around, actually, human lives abroad. I wonder what my colleague thinks the impact would be if the status quo continues where there appears to not be a plan, where there appears to not be a resolution in sight. What could the impact be on the people of Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, clearly, the relationship would deteriorate. We have seen in the past year or so how quickly and easily it is for China, in this case, to take actions that hurt people. We have to move on this and we should move quickly.

This gives me an opportunity to repeat what I said earlier. Perhaps there should be some time limit on this proposed committee to present a report. I do not think an open-ended committee for the life of the Parliament is what is desirable. I think we should come up with a time frame in which this committee should report as well.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Prince Albert.

As this is my first time rising in the 43rd Parliament, I want to begin by thanking the people of Portage—Lisgar. I am grateful and humbled by the support and trust they have placed in me. This is the fourth time I have been elected by the riding of Portage—Lisgar and I am more appreciative than ever.

A huge thanks also to so many friends, volunteers and people who helped out during the campaign and supported me. I have a special thanks to my partner, Michael. This the first election campaign he jumped into, and he jumped in with both feet. I appreciate so much the love and support of family, friends and my constituents of Portage—Lisgar.

I know the people of Portage—Lisgar elected me to come here once again to not only be a strong voice, but a direct voice, to say things that have to be said and do things that have to be done. I know all of us in this place take that responsibility very seriously.

The motion we brought forward as an opposition party reflects that. We could have brought forward a number of issues today. There are still many outstanding issues from the last Parliament to do with ethics, accountability, the government and the rule of law. There are questions around higher taxes for Canadians and a real plan to combat greenhouse gas emissions. There are all kinds of issues that could have been addressed today in our opposition day motion, but we chose this for a number of reasons.

I am so happy we brought this forward. This is a very difficult issue, one surrounding our relationship with the Government of China. However, it is an issue that requires all of us to come together to find a solution. That is the spirit in which this motion is brought forward.

The motion would establish a special standing committee that would examine this specific issue. It would not wade into other issues but would only look at our deteriorating relationship with China and how to resolve it. I know there have been some questions from the Liberal side on why we do not let the foreign affairs committee do this.

The Liberals, especially, have said time and again that we should not direct committees on what they should or should not study. For the Liberals to now suggest that we would assume the foreign affairs committee would take it over is a bit of a contradiction in their own approach to committees. It is for that reason the Conservatives would not just expect that the foreign affairs committee would look at this situation.

This is not a challenge that can be solved in just five or six meetings. This issue is multipronged. It affects foreign affairs, trade and the rule of law. There are public safety issues around Huawei, for example. It is a multi-faceted challenge that requires a committee dedicated solely to helping find a solution. When we as parliamentarians come together, though we are in a minority Parliament, we can find a solution to this problem.

I will go over a couple of things.

Why do we need a solution and why do we need it now? It is obvious that this strained and broken relationship with the Government of China is having real, meaningful and very serious effects on Canadians, not only Canadian groups like our canola, pork and beef producers, which, in turn, affect jobs, families and certainty around all of these industries, but today especially, this is having a real impact on lives. The lives of individual Canadians are at risk. This certainly is an issue with which we should all be seized.

It is important to say that our reputation on the world stage is also being impacted by this. I think most of our partners know that the Government of China is not an easy government to deal with and that it is complex. How we deal with what China is doing to Canadians is being watched. We have to recognize that the impact is not only on individual Canadians, but also on us as a nation, and it needs to be addressed.

How did we get here? I believe, in part, there has been incompetence and some bad decisions by the current government and it is important that we recognize it. We cannot go back and undo all of the wrongs, but if we do not recognize some of the wrongs that have been done and the poor decisions that were made, we cannot move ahead.

Certainly, we have to discuss the complexity of having a relationship with a government like the government in Beijing, China. It is very complex. This is a regime that does not respect the rule of law. It does not respect democracy in many ways, which we are seeing in Hong Kong. It does not respect the very people who it is governing. I think we all recognize it is not an easy government with which to deal. This problem has been created because of some mistakes and it is also there because of the complexity of dealing with the Government of China.

I want to break that down very quickly.

A lot of the problems started before the Prime Minister became the prime minister, when he stated that he had an admiration for the basic dictatorship of China. I do not know if any of us, to this day, can understand why he would think that, but even more so why he would say that. That really begs a lot of questions, and I hope since then he has changed his mind. I hope he can now recognize that a dictatorship and the way that China operates is not something to be admired at all. It is something to be recognized for what it is.

That was not a good start. He then became Prime Minister and in 2015 and well into 2016 and maybe even 2017, we saw the government basically courting the Government of China and many of the businesses that were part of that regime and trying to be courted by them, kowtowing to that regime. It was very hard to watch. A number of experts saw it.

I want to quote David Mulroney, former ambassador to China. In December 2018, he said, “I think the Liberals tended to be naive and have been naive that precedes the current prime minister. But the prime minister and certainly in some of his statements...he said that it was the administration he most admired showed naivety.”

In a February 2019 column, Terry Glavin stated:

From the outset of his emergence on the national scene, [the] Prime Minister...has happily accepted the warm embrace of Canada's China business lobby, and his enthusiasms have not gone unrequited. From his appointment of Peter Harder of the Canada China Business Council to lead his transition team — Harder is now...[the Prime Minister]'s point man in the senate — to his private cash-for-access fundraisers with Chinese billionaires, [the Prime Minister] had been Beijing's hands-down favourite among G7 leaders.

Make no mistake that being a favourite of Beijing's G7 leaders is not a positive; it is a negative. He was seen as the little potato by the Chinese regime.

We saw that mistake really set the tone for our relationship. Subsequent to that, we saw issues where we, as Canadians and as a Canadian government, obeyed the rule of law. We arrested, under an extradition warrant, a certain Chinese executive. We then saw the retaliation of the Chinese government when it took two Canadians hostages. The relationship from there has gone downhill. We saw our former ambassador, John McCallum, mishandle, misfire and misspeak, which again showed great misjudgement.

In an interview in The Globe and Mail, Guy Saint-Jacques, a former ambassador, said, “apart from seeking support from allies...I am not clear on what is the strategy being pursued by the Canadian government. It may be useful if there was better communication.”

It would be useful if there were a strategy. If there is one, we have not seen it. The proposed committee will provide the opportunity for the government to get not only ideas, but input and buy-in from Parliament and show the Chinese government that we are united and that we will stand up for Canadians and Canada. We are not naive; we are sophisticated, strong and we have the ability to find a solution.

We ask all parties to support the motion and find a way forward to solve this ongoing crisis.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the narrative of the member across the way in regard to Canada's relationship with China. China does have and should have a healthy relationship with Canada, as it has with many other countries around the world.

Canada has also spent a great deal of time in developing relationships with other countries. This is one of the reasons why under this administration we are seeing more trade agreements with other countries than any other government in Canada's history with respect to formal agreements being signed. Whether it is with countries in Europe or with the United States, we are moving forward from a global perspective. I understand and I appreciate the concerns the Conservatives are raising today.

Does the member feel in any way that we are undermining the potential of our standing committees, especially when we have a minority situation? I suspect that the standing committee could very easily cover the areas which have been point out. I am looking specifically at the foreign affairs committee. If the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs was constituted, to what degree would the motion be necessary? We could empower a standing committee in which the opposition has a majority.

[The Acting Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members to keep their questions brief enough because other people want to ask questions.

The official opposition House leader.