Debates of Dec. 10th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Proposed special committee on Canada-China relations

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

Madam Speaker, the member may have missed my point. It is a bit of a contradiction that the government has said that it does not instruct committees on what to do and now the government suggests that it would tell the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs to cover this. I do not think that is the solution. This is a multi-pronged challenge that requires a committee that can look at all facets of it, whether it is the foreign affairs side of things, trade or human rights.

However, the member's previous comments are what concern me the most. Is he somehow suggesting that this really is not a problem and we do not have to worry about it? If so, he is very much mistaken. Is it his approach that we should just wash our hands with our relationship with China and start to establish other relationships with other countries included South Asian countries? It is certainly a valid point that should be discussed in this context and could be part of what we discuss. However, right now we have a problem with our relationship with China that is affecting Canadians. The government needs to recognize that, not underplay it. It needs to recognize that we need a solution.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and to the Liberal response. There are a couple of issues that are very important here. Our relationship with China right now has been very compromised. We are dealing with a geopolitical situation in the world where we have an American ally with Mr. Trump, who sometimes makes some very problematic decisions that affect Canada. We also have a very aggressive Chinese policy in many parts of the world and we have not taken this issue seriously.

We have Canadians on trial. We have affected canola. We have an issue here where we can come together and establish a special committee, not try and tell a standing committee, which is not the right of Parliament, so we can apprise and look at this issue and find solutions. We can look at the threats being posed, as well as how we start to manoeuver in the geopolitical world we in, which is a very different world than 10 years ago.

How does my hon. colleague think this committee could move forward on addressing these issues?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague's comments. Not only is this situation changing literally day by day and week by week, but we have to look at what our approach has been in the past decade or number of decades.

That is something the committee could look at, but it begins with the government recognizing what my hon. colleague just pointed out, that this is an issue with which we have to deal. It is not just a little disagreement we have with a country that maybe is having a small impact.

I am concerned if the government does not recognize this problem, or if it is trying to protect its pride or is more worried about saving face as opposed to actually addressing this problem, then it will continue and there will be a greater impact.

I very much agree with my colleague. This committee would be established for the sole purpose of finding solutions to the deteriorating relationship. No other committee would have that ability or be able to direct itself in that way.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I welcome you to the Chair. It is great to give my first speech in the House in front of you.

I also want to take the opportunity at this time to thank the people in the riding of Prince Albert in Saskatchewan for electing me to represent them here in this great chamber.

My riding is a very special riding. It has had three prime ministers. Of course, one of the most famous is John Diefenbaker. What did he do to make himself so famous? He did many things, such as appoint the first female cabinet minister, establish the Bill of Rights and allow the first aboriginal vote. This was done by John Diefenbaker, a Conservative. He was the first global leader to criticize apartheid in South Africa. As he was balancing these issues, he was able to balance them with the needs of doing trade with China.

In 1961, China was experiencing massive starvation. It was having huge economic issues. John Diefenbaker, through the Canadian Wheat Board, offered China 40 million bushels of wheat for sale. Through compassion, he stepped up and gave it to China on credit, of all things. He was criticized. Our neighbours to the south were upset with him when he did that.

However, he knew it was important to find a way to balance what was required in China with human rights and other issues that were important to Canadians. I think that is what Canadians expect of any government moving forward.

We had a really good relationship with China up until about 2017. In fact, in 2015, when Canadians went to the polls, they never expected the Chinese relationship to be a problem with the current Prime Minister. They assumed it would keep growing. Yes, we had issues with respect to human rights and security. Yes, we had issues, but we had mature conversations with China to deal with them and find solutions to them together. However, in 2017, this all changed.

I am going to talk to this from a trade perspective and how important this market is to Canada. However, we cannot look at this issue from just a trade perspective. When we look at what China means to us, what it means to Canada and Saskatchewan, it is huge. It is 4.3% of our total exports. Of course, the U.S. is number one, with 75%.

China is our second-largest trading partner for merchandise and our fifth-largest for services. We trade approximately $100 billion a year, and that is growing. It has a population of 1.4 billion people, which is growing. It has a GDP of $23.3 trillion. It is huge. It is a massive marketplace for people from around the world to sell into and participate in.

Canada has sold $2.6 billion of canola. Of that crop, 40% went to China. That crop does not have a home today. We have not seen solutions presented from the current government on what to do with that or to compensate the farmers who grow canola. There is 2.4 billion dollars' worth of wood pulp that comes out of Canada.

Those are just some examples of the things we sell into the Chinese marketplace that make it so important to us. These are things that we want to make sure we continue to move forward with, because these are the things that it requires and we that have an abundance of.

On December 1, 2018, the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, and I apologize to her if I have pronounced her name wrong, the chief financial officer at Huawei, caused a problem. I get that.

However, the answer to that problem was that the legal and political systems are separate in Canada. China respected that answer until the Prime Minister decided he was going to interfere in the legal system in Canada with SNC-Lavalin, and that is what he did. That is when we saw the problems happen.

In April, 2019, there was a ban on canola seed to the Chinese. In May there was a ban on Canadian pork, of which 20% went to China. In June there was a ban on Canadian beef and veal. Canada was banned from its fifth-largest market. At that time, we had no ambassador. There was no game plan or repercussions for what was happening.

We have to ask why this happened. What went on in the background that took our country from being one that had a respected relationship with China to a situation where it will not even talk to us or acknowledge that we need an ambassador? What happened? We need to have a committee go through and research that.

Thankfully, in November 2019, the ban on meat was lifted. I was glad to hear that because our Canadian farmers needed that piece of good news. Hopefully, that is something we can build on. Maybe that is something the committee could analyze to find out what we did that allowed us to resume trading our meat to China.

It is really tough to pigeonhole this issue into one of our existing committees, because issues outside of trade impact trade. Human rights issues impact trade, and security issues impact trade.

One good thing about trade, and I still believe this to be true with respect to all of the countries around the world that we trade with, when we trade with countries such as China or Saudi Arabia, when we have concerns about human rights or women's rights, would we not be better off having a conversation with those countries?

Would we not be better off to challenge them to do better and encourage them to do better? Would it not be better to reach out to those countries and show them a better way to have a better society? When they do not talk to us, what influence do we have? We have zero influence and zero impact on the ability to move the yardsticks in a positive fashion.

The importance of trade to Canada is huge. When we look at our role in the world, our influence around the world, trade is one of the tools that we have in our tool box that we could utilize effectively. If we do not have those markets, if those countries will not talk to us because of something our Prime Minister has done, or because of bad policy or bad judgment shown in foreign affairs, the developers of the products we sell around the world are hurt.

No dollars will come out of the Prime Minister's back pocket. For example, a Canadian farmer grows 1,000 acres of canola. The market drops to about $1.50 a bushel. That farmer grows roughly 50 bushels in an acre, which is roughly $60 to $70 an acre. That farmer has lost $70,000 out of his back pocket because of the actions of our Prime Minister.

That is important. That means a lot. That is a huge dent in that farmer's livelihood. Then we throw a carbon tax on top of him. Let us not talk about that and what it will do to the drying cost and everything else, which the Liberals seem to ignore. I will not digress because that is a different topic for debate. This shows why people in western Canada are so mad. They are the ones who are always paying for the Liberal government's mistakes.

Then there is Huawei. One of the things that does not get talked about, with respect to the Chinese government, is that it massively invested in western Canada, in the resource sector. When the Chinese government found out that it could not get pipelines and resources to market, its investment was stranded. How did we expect the Chinese to react? They need our resources.

We want to make sure that we give our oil and natural gas resources to the Chinese, because every time we ship our natural gas to that country it is one less coal-fired generating plant there. That helps our north. That helps us directly. That helps climate change in a global fashion. That is important. Again, when the country does not talk to us and will not trade with us, what have we done? We have lost all of those opportunities.

It is important that the committee comes together because people do not trust the Prime Minister to lead the discussion with China. They trust this Parliament to do it. The Prime Minister needs the committee to give him the appropriate advice to move forward to rebuild that relationship. Members of the House can work together and co-operate so Canada can benefit as a whole.

I look forward to the committee coming together. I look forward to working with all sides of the House in a positive and constructive manner. I look forward to analyzing what went wrong, but not only that, I am looking forward to solutions. The people of Canada need solutions. The Conservative Party has some solutions and we are more than happy to share them for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, both the member opposite and I were sitting here when the Bloc representative was addressing the House. That Bloc member raised the issue of why the Conservatives brought forward part (k), which mandates that there be three individuals appearing before the special committee, and suggested that the committee should be allowed to make that determination and that it would be a better motion if part (k) was deleted.

I am wondering if the Conservative Party would be open to an amendment of that nature, thereby reinforcing the importance of committees, whether it is a special committee or a standing committee, to be able to determine whoever it would like to appear as witnesses.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will remind the member that the Liberals do not have a majority government. They do not have that mandate. We have seen tricks and games played by the Liberals in the past where they have prevented people from coming to committee. That is why the committee of the whole has to do it. That is why the will of this House of Commons has to be in the motion.

Why are you assuming that the Prime Minister is going to embarrass you?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member to address the questions and comments to the Chair.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, why are the Liberals assuming the Prime Minister is going to embarrass them in giving testimony? What does that mean? Do they not have confidence in him either? Now they have just joined the rest of the people in Saskatchewan and Alberta and right across this great country, because we do not have confidence in him either.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about item (k) in the motion.

My colleague from Montarville said in his speech that this Conservative motion was the first test of the parties' willingness to work together. He went through the motion clause by clause, pointing out that it all made sense. He did note that item (k) could ruffle some Liberal feathers. He also said that the committee essentially has the power to summon anyone it wants, as set out in item (k).

I will repeat my colleague opposite's question. Would the Conservative Party consider removing item (k) from the motion to eliminate any potential sticking points?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party would give reasonable consideration to all types of proposals brought forward.

I do have to commend the member for Montarville. He gave an excellent speech where he talked about the actual motion and went through it line by line. He explained to everybody in the House why it was such a good motion and why we should proceed with it.

We look forward to your support on this as we move forward, and we look forward to working constructively with you for the benefit of all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member for Prince Albert one more time that he is to address the questions and comments to the Chair.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague talked a lot about resources and the importance of resources. One thing that has not been brought up yet is that in the House a couple of years ago, we expressed concerns for the government when it was moving forward with a very murky insurance company called the Anbang Insurance Group and the sale of our residential care facilities to China.

Members might be aware that it turns out that three on the island have now had to be taken back over by the officials on the island due to the care that was given.

They need to move slowly in terms of the decisions around foreign investment, and this is another good example. I would like comments from my colleague.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is just another example of why we need this special committee. When we see purchases made by state trading enterprises out of China, we need to have appropriate review of them. It is obvious we cannot trust the current government to do that review because of some of the assets it has sold and some of the security concerns we have had with them.

Moving forward, this is a good example. When we see a proposal brought forward to Canada saying we want to take over this type of entity, we could actually do a proper vetting and maybe set up some policies around certain things that we would be willing to allow having Chinese investment in and certain things we would not consider to be allowable for a Chinese state trading enterprise to invest in.

Again, that would be the will of the committee. The member could use the committee to bring forward these types of issues and then find a way forward to find appropriate policies to deal with them.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege again to represent the people of Don Valley West, and I want to thank them for their confidence in me. I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa West—Nepean.

This is an important motion and an important discussion we are having as a House of Commons, as members of Parliament. The diplomatic relationship we have with China is complex, important and sensitive. I am actually very pleased that the member for Durham has raised this motion today, to give us an opportunity to have this discussion as members of the House.

Let me assure all members in the House that on the government side we are listening to all the arguments being made by members with respect to this motion. We are listening carefully to every concern raised. As those concerns are raised, I would hope that there is agreement in this House that the relationship with China is important; our trading, cultural and people-to-people relationships, as well as every consular issue, are of great importance to people in this House.

As we are doing that, let me say very clearly that if the intent of this motion is to have a robust discussion and get to the core of these ideas, it is absolutely an appropriate idea. What we are wondering about on this side of the House is about where that discussion is best held. Is it best held in a standing committee, or several standing committees, or is it best held in a special committee? We are listening to the arguments carefully to understand the best place for this discussion to be held.

Underneath all of these issues, whether they are about trade or security, all of us need to hold up the state of Canadians held arbitrarily in detention in China, especially after one year. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have said very clearly, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are and will remain our absolute priority. Also, in the case of Robert Schellenberg, it is of extreme concern that China has arbitrarily applied the death penalty.

Formerly, as parliamentary secretary, I had the opportunity to travel to China and to raise these cases with officials in China, as well as to observe the quiet but very effective diplomacy of our diplomatic corps in Beijing. I want to commend each and every one of those people who have provided leadership and thoughtful understanding of the intricacies of this consular dilemma.

Consular cases are the most sensitive files that a government can be faced with. Families, friends and communities are at the heart of every one. To take this responsibility is to take it seriously and importantly. There is nothing more important to us as a government than the safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad.

Each consular case involves a person, a Canadian, and is unique. Our consular officials are trained experts who know how to approach each case in each country differently and uniquely.

A year ago today on December 10, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were arbitrarily imprisoned in China.

On November 23, his third day in office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised these cases directly with his Chinese counterpart at the G20. On the sidelines of the G20 meeting, a bilateral meeting that lasted almost an hour was also held with China's foreign affairs minister, Wang Yi. Our minister took that opportunity to express Canada's serious concerns about the cases of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

The minister reiterated that these cases were his top priority as Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs. More specifically, he expressed his concern, and that of all Canadians, regarding these men's detention conditions. He clearly stated that the detention of these two Canadians was unacceptable, that they had been imprisoned arbitrarily and that they should be freed immediately.

I am asking members of the House to take the time today to think about what these two men and their families are going through. We all need to continue to support Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor and their families.

The government will continue to work tirelessly until these men are once again free.

Canada opposes the use of the death penalty in all cases. Therefore, we will continue to advocate for Robert Schellenberg at the same time. Aligned with this principle, our government seeks clemency for all Canadians facing the death penalty anywhere and everywhere in the world. These are difficult situations, especially for the individuals involved and for their families. Our government and consular officials continue to provide consular services to them and their families.

I take exception to Conservative members of Parliament who somehow suggest that we are not doing absolutely everything in our power. With great expertise, with officials, with diplomatic relations, and with our minister and Prime Minister, we take every opportunity possible to raise these cases as well as the ongoing diplomatic issues that are important to every member of this House. Our efforts also include active engagement with the international community.

It is clear that, just as these Canadians are not alone, Canada is not alone. Canada is grateful to our many allies who have spoken out in support of us, such as Australia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the U.S., Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Spain, the European Union, NATO, and respected members of civil society and scholars. All have echoed these statements loudly and clearly regarding China's action and are in support of Canada. They, too, have called for the release of Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor and for an impartial due process for Mr. Schellenberg.

Canada and this government will continue to raise our deep concerns, emphasizing the worrying precedent that China's arbitrary actions have set. It is a precedent that will undoubtedly be of concern to any country, business, organization or person seeking to deepen ties with China. Ultimately, China must realize that expressing displeasure with another country through the arbitrary detention of its citizens and the arbitrary imposition of the death sentence sends the wrong message to everyone in the international community.

The Canadian government has raised specific cases, as well as our opposition to the use of the death penalty, directly with the Chinese government. We will never waver in these ongoing efforts. Neither will we ever waver in our ongoing stand for human rights, democratic institutions and the rule of law, absolutely standing firm on those issues while maintaining an important relationship with a country, China in this case. We will continue to undertake calculated, strategic engagement with China and express our extreme concerns on these cases.

With respect to where this discussion should happen, I would argue, having been a chair of a standing committee, that those are the places where we should most appropriately deal with this. We should allow the committees to do their work. The House may direct a committee on certain work, which has been done several times, but we need to manage our resources well. We need to also allow our standing committees to be masters of their own houses. We will continue to do that as a government. We have shown our respect for committees and we will continue to do that.

We will continue to listen today. We will promise to always collaborate. We are looking forward to constructive suggestions on how to improve every diplomatic relationship. We will count on the opposition to hold Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor in their minds and hearts this day and every day to ensure that their safety trumps anything about politics or personal advantage.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the citizens of Flamborough—Glanbrook for returning me back to the House. With my first question, I did not have the time to thank them, but I want to thank them sincerely and appropriately.

Also, if we are able, we should get this video feed to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor so that they can rest assured that much of this debate is happening because of our grave concern for their safety. We will continue to have these debates because their safety, the safety of other Canadians and, frankly, the human rights of the citizens of China, are that important.

My colleague said that the issue is complex, important and sensitive, that the Liberal Party is listening, and government members are doing everything they can. Therefore, if that is the case on all those points, I would sincerely ask the member if a special committee would not do everything it could with 338 minds here to be able to feed into that committee. Would the Liberals not have the option, if they wanted, to swear members of that committee to secrecy or even, if the Prime Minister wanted, to swear them into the Privy Council? There are a lot of options to be able to hear from a special committee on this issue, to help us with our relationship with China.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on his re-election. I have stated very clearly that I appreciate greatly his commitment to human rights, fairness and the rule of law and all the words he has offered in this House.

To his question, standing committees are the place where these subjects would best be discussed. To divert resources to a special committee would be less than optimal. However, I can see the advantages of it as well. I understand that there are times when a special committee is necessary. I co-chaired the special committee that was set up to discuss medical assistance in dying, because it crossed a variety of subject areas. It was an important discussion, but it was time limited, it was directed and it was important to get the work done quickly.

This issue is ongoing and will continue—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I have to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Joliette.

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin with a comment for my colleague.

His argument about potentially having standing committees study this type of problem is hardly convincing, since the diplomatic crisis with China is nothing new. It has been a problem for some time. The member himself pointed out that two Canadians have been arbitrarily held in detention in China for one year. When the Liberal Party had a majority in the House, why did it not use standing committees to study this issue?

In my mind, the official opposition's motion is the first test of whether all members and parties can work together. I humbly suggest that my colleague try this committee so that we can work together.

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

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs did consider the relationship with China quite considerably. It called the ambassador in and had in camera meetings about the situation. Members discussed consular affairs, I understand. I was not at the meeting, but a variety of issues came up because they were important for the committee.

We still need to allow Parliament to work. We will take direction, obviously, from this Parliament, we will be respectful of what Parliament says and Parliament will decide what every committee should be doing.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first chance to speak in the House in the 43rd Parliament, I would like to thank the constituents of Ottawa West—Nepean for giving me the privilege of representing them in this House.

I want to thank my colleagues across the aisle for bringing such an incredibly important issue to the attention of this House and giving all of us the opportunity to share our concern about what is happening to our citizens under arbitrary detention in China. That is what I will speak about today.

The Government of Canada shares the distress felt by many Canadians with respect to the arbitrary measures taken against Canadian citizens in China. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly stated, all government sectors are affected by the cases of Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor and Robert Schellenberg.

One year ago today, December 10, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were arbitrarily arrested by the Chinese authorities. We will continue to insist that these arbitrary detentions are unacceptable. We will continue to call on the Chinese government to immediately release Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor. We will do so at every opportunity until these men are released.

As we acknowledge this one-year anniversary, I ask members to take time today to reflect on what these individuals and their families are going through. We must all continue to stand with Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor and their families.

What is helpful to these Canadians is a united front in defending their interests. I am happy to see that today in the House we are demonstrating exactly that. We have seen support from international partners, allies, civil society, diplomats and Canadians across our country, who echo our call for their release. Working together is in the best interest of these Canadians.

We also remain seized with the troubling case of Robert Schellenberg. We oppose the arbitrary decision to issue a death penalty and continue to call on China to grant clemency to Mr. Schellenberg.

While Canadians are especially troubled by China's actions, it is important to recognize that this is not just a Canadian problem. Many others around the world share our deep concern about China's arbitrary measures against foreign citizens. We ask China to recognize that its actions are harming its global reputation, which is not in China's best interest.

The concerns expressed by China have been echoed by many other countries, including Australia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Spain, as well as the European Union and the Secretary General of NATO.

U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice-President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have all openly expressed concerns. Mr. Trump personally raised the issue with the Chinese president. Secretary of State Pompeo announced that the United States was standing with Canada in the face of China's arbitrary and unacceptable detention of Canadian citizens.

The U.S. Congress also passed two resolutions, one in the Senate and the other in the U.S. House of Representatives, commending the Government of Canada for upholding the rule of law and complying with its international legal obligations. Congress also joined Canada in calling for the immediate release of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig and for due process for Robert Schellenberg.

The foreign ministers of the G7 also emphasized together, in the communiqué released after their April meeting in Saint Malo, France, their collective, deep concern about the arbitrary actions of Chinese authorities against foreign citizens.

The European Union also raised its concerns with Chinese authorities during the 37th EU-China Human Rights Dialogue in April, in Brussels. The EU emphasized in particular the need for due process and the importance of ensuring that Canadians are treated properly while in Chinese custody.

The EU president, Donald Tusk, also expressed his personal support over social media, saying, “Both Canada and EU stand by the rule of law underpinning the global order. EU calls for the release of the Canadian citizens detained in China.”

Australia's foreign minister, Marise Payne, has also denounced China's actions, and emphasizes her government's concerns about these arbitrary detentions.

The U.K.'s foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, has expressed his own government's concerns. The U.K. has noted in particular its concern over “suggestions of a political motivation” for the detention of Kovrig and Spavor. France and Germany, among others, have echoed these concerns.

In addition to voicing concerns, the governments of Spain and the Netherlands, among others, released statements stressing the importance of ensuring that Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig receive fair treatment in China. Canada has concerns about conditions of detention in China, and it has shared them with Chinese authorities.

This includes calling on China to respect internationally recognized standards for detention, including the Nelson Mandela Rules, meaning the United Nations standard minimum rules and basic principles for the treatment of prisoners.

It is not only foreign governments that have expressed concern. Leaders in academia, the private sector and across civil society have also joined the chorus. An open letter signed by diplomats and scholars from 19 countries is just one example of how the dismay over China's actions extends well beyond Canada's borders. The letter, issued on January 21, states that Mr. Kovrig's and Mr. Spavor's detentions send a message that their efforts to build bridges and better understand China are “unwelcome and even risky in China.... That will lead to less dialogue and greater distrust, and undermine efforts to manage disagreements and identify common ground. Both China and the rest of the world will be worse off as a result.”

Canada is grateful to all those who have joined us in raising these concerns. The government will continue to work diplomatically to address the issue and encourage international partners to stand with Canada. Our international partners recognize that China's arbitrary measures set a troubling precedent for the international community. It is important that together we send a message that exerting arbitrary measures against foreign citizens is not an effective approach for addressing bilateral concerns.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that through careful and strategic engagement, Canada will continue to work with its friends and partners around the world to navigate this challenging period. Canada and its allies will continue to stand on our principles and defend the rules-based international order that has sustained global peace and prosperity for decades.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this moment to thank the people of Yorkton—Melville for putting me in this position again. I deeply appreciate it and will serve them to the best of my ability.

It is important that today we look at the fact that the problem, or at least from what I hear in my riding and throughout the country, is that Canadians do not have confidence in the way the government has been proceeding. With the amount of time that has passed, the gaffes that have taken place within foreign affairs and the multiple issues we now have with trade, especially in my province, where farmers have faced significant problems, we have a situation that is very multi-faceted.

The member across the way focused mostly on the Canadian citizens being held inappropriately. I totally appreciate that, but we have a circumstance here that is very multi-faceted. Does she not see that the best answer to this circumstance, to get the best response, is to support the motion put forward today?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not accept the entire premise of my hon. colleague's question. We heard earlier from the member for Prince Albert that conversation and dialogue are vitally important, and this is precisely what the government has done right up to the level of the Prime Minister.

With regard to the motion before the House today, I sat on the foreign affairs committee, which travelled to China in 2018. Earlier this year, it released a report on its engagement in East Asia. I believe that the foreign affairs committee has the history, the institutional knowledge and the expertise to be able to take on this subject area. I also believe other committees could too. I was chair of the pay equity special committee that did incredible work, but I am not convinced that it could not have done better if it had been done through the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which has the history and institutional memory.

I am not convinced that another special committee is the way to go, but I significantly appreciate that this is a subject we as parliamentarians have to be seized with.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, my real concern is that Canada has deep ties with China. We have cultural ties and many of our communities have deep ties, yet things have gone terribly wrong since we arrested the Huawei executive and put ourselves in the middle of the trade war between the United States and China. There are people in jail unfairly who are facing extreme conditions. There is a trade war.

There is also the brewing unrest in Hong Kong. Canada can play a huge role in this because of our connection to China and the people of Hong Kong. There is a growing concern about what is going to happen in Hong Kong. We saw what happened in Tiananmen Square.

Given that we now have a very compromised relationship with China, how will we be able to ensure there is pressure to protect the democratic rights of the people of Hong Kong from unfair and arbitrary attack in their fight for democracy in the streets of Hong Kong?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, I was the chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. I have worked around the world on the right to democratic participation and the right to peaceful assembly. We stand very strongly behind the people of Hong Kong, who are peacefully expressing their right to peaceful assembly and their legitimate aspirations for a true democratic country.

I appreciate very much the member's raising that issue. In fact, in October the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised this issue at the G20. I believe we have consistently expressed our position and values when it comes to people's legitimate aspirations on democratic rights.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you for resuming your role in the chair.

It is indeed a pleasure to be back in the House of Commons. This is my first speech in the 43rd Parliament, although I took part in question period and in committee of the whole last night. I want to thank the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for putting their trust in me again. I am humbled by their support. This is the sixth time I have been elected, and I always look forward to representing them and being their voice in the chamber.

I am splitting my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

This motion by the official opposition is indeed timely, one that I support wholeheartedly and one that deals with a growing concern among Canadians. My riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has been dealing first-hand with the impacts of our increasingly difficult relationship with China. Earlier our agriculture, beef and pork producers were sanctioned, banned from moving product into the Chinese market. We are still dealing with the restrictions on Canadian canola, and that is having a huge impact on the farming sector in Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and right across the country. The mismanagement on this file by the Liberals has created the challenges we are now facing in our economy, as well as making it more difficult to work with China when it comes to our national security, and it is affecting our national defence as well.

I have always been a big advocate of standing up for human rights. I brought forward the legislation to recognize the Ukrainian Holodomor as a genocide in this place. I sponsored the bill on the Magnitsky act and making sure we have sanctions in place against corrupt foreign officials who are gross human rights violators. I have been advocating for sometime that Chinese officials responsible for those human rights violations need to be added to Canada's Magnitsky sanctions list.

We know how the Chinese have been behaving. We know the Chinese government has allowed individuals to profiteer by harvesting organs from political prisoners and exporting them around the world. We know that the Chinese government has intentionally targeted practitioners of Falun Dafa, often called Falun Gong, because it does not believe in their right to peaceful assembly or to worship or meditate in their own way. The government imprisons them, harvests their organs and tissues, and exports them all around the world. That, to me, is disgusting, and we need to put a stop to it. That is one of the things that this committee could look at, these human rights violations, such as how Tibetan monks have been treated by the Chinese government or how often Tibetan monks, in protest, will go out into the streets and light themselves on fire.

We have seen that Chinese Muslims, the Uighurs, have been targeted as well and imprisoned. Right now there is a smear campaign going on against them by the state of China itself. The regime in Beijing is discrediting minority and religious groups within China. That again is something that this committee could drill down on by allowing the different organizations and faith groups to appear in committee and talk about the human rights abuses that they have been facing. We have recently been witnessing the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong and know that the Chinese military massed itself on the borders of Hong Kong to threaten the citizens of Hong Kong, saying that if they did not do what it wanted, citizens could face military oppression or possibly see Hong Kong turned into a police state. That threat is still there. Trying to appease China or normalize relations with it, to me, is very disheartening.

We know that the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister and the former minister of foreign affairs have not viewed China as a threat, yet we have heard over and over again that our allies, both in the Five Eyes and the two eyes, NORAD being the two eyes, have grave concern over allowing a Chinese company like Huawei to have access to our 5G network.

We already know of the challenges for other countries that had adopted Huawei as their main Wi-Fi provider, with its backdoor access to their information systems putting at risk not only national security but the protection of individuals, who were having to make sure their identities were not harvested and circulated through cyberspace or that their personal information was not stolen to be used for more nefarious reasons.

We recently had the Halifax security forum. The Minister of National Defence was there. On November 22, he said:

We don't consider China as an adversary. We do have two Canadians that have been arbitrarily detained in China and we ask China for their expeditious release and that's extremely important to us.

We have now learned that those two Canadians will be facing national security charges in a trial in Beijing.

Right after the Minister of National Defence quit speaking, Robert O'Brien, the national security adviser to the United States, got up and said, “The Huawei Trojan horse is frightening, it's terrifying.”

Of course, we all know there is always a huge U.S. congressional presence at the Halifax security forum, and CBC reported on November 23 that “Democratic and Republican senators...spoke with one voice, saying the dangers of proceeding outweigh the benefits.”

Senator Angus King said:

We differ sometimes on issues, but not on this one. The risks of Huawei coming into your country far outweigh any benefits.

Therefore, we are looking at protecting our systems, our financial and transportation infrastructures, and making sure that things operate well, never mind protecting our Canadian government and our national security.

Why would we want to allow a company like Huawei, which often provides intel to the Government of China through a backdoor access, into our Wi-Fi system?

Aside from the national security threat of having Huawei become part of our Internet system here through the 5G network, we also need to look at the military threat.

When I spoke here last night, I talked about the buildup of the military presence of Russia and that the rear admiral who is in charge of the northern fleet for the Russian Federation is anticipating a conflict in Canada's Arctic. I can tell members that if they look at China right now, which is not an Arctic nation, it has an Arctic policy called the “polar silk road”. It intends to make use of Canadian and Russian waters for transit. We would think that in itself, if it got approval, with the disappearing sea ice, would enable more trade up there, which could be a good thing. However, why would China, which is not an Arctic nation, currently have two polar research vessels and six People's Liberation Army navy icebreakers?

We are talking about the Government of China having heavy icebreakers. We are talking about the capability not to transit but to wage war. These are combat ships. Therefore, we have to be prepared. I have not heard anything from the government on how we are preparing to defend our sovereignty in the Arctic.

That is another thing we can talk about when this all-party committee is struck. We can get down to the essentials of Arctic sovereignty, protecting the Canadian domain, and making sure we are keeping China in check as it does things like militarize the South China Sea, as it continues to rattle sabres with neighbours like Japan and South Korea and continues to support North Korea in its efforts to build ballistic missiles. These are things that we have to take a serious look at.

I know that in 2019, the United States put China on its worldwide threat assessment. It is very concerned about China's military capabilities and the concentration of power within the regime in Beijing. We have to make sure that we are standing up for Canada first, for human rights and for the rule of law.