Debates of Dec. 10th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Proposed special committee on Canada-China relations

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was very information and he went over a lot of different topics.

We are debating a topic today that people across Canada care about deeply. This is something that is concerning Canadians, so it is important to be thinking about these issues.

Despite that, I would like to ask the member opposite whether he actually believes that going with the route of having this type of a committee struck would actually be helpful and sensitive to all of the people involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. It is self-evident that it is.

The lines coming from members of the government suggesting that these are very sensitive topics so they need not be discussed in Parliament or by parliamentarians are profoundly disrespectful to this institution and to the people who sent us here to advocate for them.

Parliamentary committees have a vast range of options and tools at their disposal. They can hear testimony in camera. They can very reasonably assess the challenges and the sensitivities, whether in camera, travelling or selecting certain agenda items or not. The suggestion by members opposite is that it is not legitimate to have parliamentary scrutiny of the actions of government on the most important foreign affairs file.

Let us remember that in some countries around the world, such as the U.K., the government has the intention to engage in military operations and then decides not to after being directed to by Parliament. I think we should have a stronger Parliament, a Parliament which stands up to the government. We have a minority Parliament. Part of working and having strong institutions is our being able to direct the government as parliamentarians and acting responsibly as we do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to ask my question on several occasions today, and I look for a response from the member opposite. It is in regard to the importance of recognizing the independence of these committees.

We have consistently said that standing committees do a lot of fantastic work for Canadians. Whether it is a standing committee or a special committee, committees provide the opportunity for parliamentarians to work together and produce some really good things. Part of their responsibility is also determining who they would call for witnesses. The Bloc believes that paragraph (k) should have been deleted from the motion that has been proposed.

Does the member opposite feel that the House of Commons should dictate to standing committees or a special committee who should appear, or should it be the special committee and the standing standing committees that determine who should appear before them?

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament that member and his colleagues voted in favour of many motions that delivered explicit instructions to committees to undertake particular studies and to do so within specifically prescribed timelines. That member has voted in favour of those initiatives many times.

This motion is about creating a committee. I believe in the independence of committees, but it is hard for a committee to be independent if it has not yet been created. This motion brings a committee into existence, which could then exercise its independence over its agenda. Paragraph (k) in our motion gives the committee the power to call certain ministers and the Prime Minister to appear as it sees fit. It retains the authority of the committee.

During the election, the Munk School wanted to have a debate about foreign policy. All of the other party leaders agreed, but the Prime Minister refused. He did not want to have a debate about his approach to foreign policy. It is therefore very legitimate in this Parliament to have the committee hearings and the discussions that the Prime Minister was unwilling to have during the election, and to force the Prime Minister to answer difficult questions about this vital foreign policy file in a way that he was unwilling to during the election.

These are vital issues, and this Parliament is very much the place where those things can be discussed. We can direct committees to have the tools to do it. We are not prescribing which ministers will be called and when. However, we need to be clear in this motion that when the committee asks for a minister or for the Prime Minister to attend and testify, it is not acceptable for the Prime Minister or the minister to simply refuse to show up. That has happened in the past, when ministers and the Prime Minister have been unavailable to the needs of the committee to hear information from them.

This section gives the committee the flexibility, but it also empowers the committee, so that when the committee says that it needs to hear from the Prime Minister, he cannot do what he did during the election for the Munk debates and just refuse to show up. He would actually need to show up and answer the challenging but important questions members of Parliament would put to him.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise and join in this debate. This is my first opportunity in the 43rd Parliament to thank the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola who have expressed their faith in me and want me to continue my work here on their behalf.

As this is our first official opposition day motion in this hung Parliament, it is important that the opposition pick an important topic, and this one is 100% appropriate. The government right now is struggling with its ongoing engagement with China, so is important that Parliament weigh in on this in this hung Parliament.

I would like to share with this place some of the reasons why I am supportive of the motion in the hope that all members will ultimately support it.

All must take heed that voters wanted to see more collaboration when it came to resolving the challenges our country faces. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who I will take a moment to congratulate on his appointment, takes the reigns at a difficult and challenging time.

The minister has said publicly that the government needs a new framework when it comes to its engagement with China. This motion is a timely response to the minister's observation. A special committee can hear the concerns and the competing interests and recommend such a new framework to the government.

The government in its previous incarnation was unable to find its feet, and we are in a position in this Parliament, one where a minority government is not always in a position to lead from on high, where Parliament with its respective Houses can share one of its greatest strengths: its ability to deliberate. In the House of Commons, we can seize an issue, ground it in the day-to-day concerns of the people and make concrete recommendations to the government in this regard.

Before I go any further, let us step back several years to how things have changed and why we are debating this committee's creation today.

In 2012, one year after I was first elected to this place, former Prime Minister Harper returned from a visit to China with the diplomatic gift of two giant panda bears. At the time, some liked to mock this bit of diplomacy, but let us all recognize that today we would be very fortunate if the only problems we had with Canada-China relations were visits from panda bears.

Today things have deteriorated significantly since 2015. There are many reasons for this. However, pointing fingers of blame at this point is less helpful and not extremely constructive.

Let us instead focus on some of the challenges. We have bans or restrictions on some of our exports into China. The Liberals refuse to make a decision on what to do with Huawei. Agriculture and farming sectors have suffered significant financial consequences. The Liberal government meanwhile looks the other way and pretends as if there is nothing to see here.

In my own riding I have a seniors care home that is ultimately now owned by the Chinese government. The seniors in care in this home are not receiving the care they deserve. When I have raised this issue in this place, the Liberals point the finger of blame somewhere else. There is no accountability for the seniors in that care home, but that is not a surprise.

In the last Parliament, the Liberals blocked a proposed committee investigation into claims of inappropriate pressure on ex-China diplomats. One former Liberal cabinet minister, who the Prime Minister appointed as the ambassador to China, stated that, “Anything that is more negative against Canada will help the Conservatives, [who] are much less friendly to China than the Liberals.” This nudge, nudge, wink, wink approach from a former Liberal cabinet minister was never explained by the Prime Minister, who was finally forced to fire him. This meant we lost a significant amount of time with that failed approach.

Where are we now exactly? Can anyone candidly answer that question with any certainty? I suspect the best we can do is to speculate.

To be clear, I do not want to lay all of the blame for this challenging situation at the foot of the Prime Minister. There are, and always will be, situations outside the control of our federal government. However, we must also recognize that when we have a relationship that is on the rocks so to speak, more of the same approach is just not the solution.

If we are to be candid, who among us can clearly articulate what strategy the Prime Minister is following? I cannot say. At best, it could be categorized as part wishful thinking and part hoping for a magical solution. That is not an effective strategy or approach. I would submit that is why our relationship continues to fail and further deteriorate.

However, here is the thing. In the last election, Canadians sent us here with a new mandate and a desire for a new approach. The Prime Minister can no longer arrogantly dismiss different ideas and approaches as he did in the last Parliament with a Liberal majority.

The future of this important relationship, for the first time in a long time, is collectively in the hands of the House and not the Prime Minister's Office. If the members in this place decide to support this motion to create a new approach and collaborative solution to this problem, we, not the Prime Minister's Office, have the democratic power to make that happen, and what a wonderful thing that is. This motion brings the potential for accountability and transparency to this place on this relationship, to all of us as members.

I would also point out that the motion does disrespect the role of the government. However, it also provides a much greater role for the opposition. If we can work together for the Canadian interest, we have a real opportunity here to potentially reach a consensus. We should not lose sight of the fact that there are positives to a new and more prosperous relationship.

An example in my riding is the ability to export fresh cherries into China. It has been of significant benefit to many local fruit growers.

From an environmental perspective, many point to the potential of much cleaner burning B.C. liquefied natural gas being used to generate power in China instead of coal power. If we could find ways to work together to lower emissions that benefit Canadians' interests and world interests, that is a win for all of us. We know that there is no carbon tax in China.

To summarize, the current relationship is somewhat broken. There are serious challenges that need a different approach. At the same time, there are also opportunities if we can find the ways to work together. I know I am up for the challenge. I know my colleagues on this side of the chamber are up for the challenge. The question, at the end of this vote, will be whether the other caucuses, government and other opposition parties, are up for that challenge?

I would like to think that collectively we are and would therefore support this special committee and help the Minister of Foreign Affairs develop a framework that is grounded in the concerns of everyday Canadians; that deliberates our national interest; and, most important, is not just another junket with irresponsible rhetoric about building ties, but a serious undertaking by the House to a more collaborative hung Parliament for the benefit of our country and its broader interests. If we work together on those terms, we can succeed together. That is why I will be voting in favour of the motion.

I would like to congratulate all members on their successful election and sincerely appeal to them to support the motion. There is so much that we can do in this country and there is so much this Parliament can do to help discern these things to make a case for a different approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, for those who may be following the debate, it is important to recognize that the government has been addressing the issues talked about today on many different fronts. Many different ministers have been engaged on the issue also. We understand what is taking place and there is a great deal of ongoing communication. The foreign affairs committee had the opportunity prior to the election to at least delve into some of the related issues. I am sure a future foreign affairs committee would be quite capable and able to do the same.

I have a very specific question for my friend across the way. Is there anything specific that he can give as an example that this special committee would be able to do? The foreign affairs committee has a history of dealing with issues related to foreign affairs, particularly China. What additional powers would this special committee have that a standing committee would not have? I am very curious.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his election, on being a willing participant today and on standing up for most of his caucus.

I would simply say is this. Very early on in the last Parliament, the NDP proposed a special committee to talk about pay equity. Certainly, that could have been done at the HUMA committee. However, Parliament decided that it wanted to have a special committee and have it report back, with recommendations, on a timely basis. As a body, we agreed to that and voted for it. I served on that committee and found it to be a very good experience.

I also served on the finance committee when we received a budget implementation act that had a provision for a DPA, a deferred prosecution agreement. When members tried to express that the finance committee should not be looking at something that would make such a radical change to the Criminal Code and that it should be the justice committee, the Liberals used their majority.

This is a different Parliament, but the same thing should happen here. Parliament and the House of Commons should decide together on what we think is the best approach going forward. I hope we would all discern that together, maybe by using different thoughts and approaches. However, this is the proposal we are putting forward. It is up to us to decide what this hung Parliament will start with.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recall in an earlier exchange with the member for Winnipeg North that he talked about how it was not good to give this special committee special instructions. As was mentioned earlier, we have often given committees instructions. We have given them very strict timelines to conduct a study, told them how many witnesses we want them to have and so on. Therefore, it is by no means out of the ordinary to have some kind of a parameter with respect to what we want a special committee to study. It has been done multiple times.

This is for my friend from British Columbia, my fellow colleague. At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we studied the sudden shut off of the canola market for our farmers. In one fell swoop we had lost 40% of our export market. I remember when we had ministers and departmental officials come before the committee. Often we were straying so close to the territory that came under the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, but we wanted to really keep on going. However, the mandate of our standing committee kept us tied strictly to agriculture.

I would like to hear his comments on the importance of weaving all these different threads together. As he said, this is an opportunity for a hung Parliament to come together, to bring forward a comprehensive report and deliver some clear recommendations on what is a very important relationship in our international relations.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for his work as a member of Parliament. I certainly appreciate his re-election and particularly his courage. Very few people from British Columbia will admit that I am a friend. With that in mind, I will simply say this.

He is absolutely right that there are so many facets to this relationship. The minister did not ask for a trade strategy. The minister did not ask for a national security strategy. The minister said that we needed a new framework. A framework means that there are many parts. It is up to the House of Commons to decide and dictate to committees. All committees are mandated by this place and are servants to this place. When a committee does not come back with the estimates, it is deemed that they have been voted on and accepted.

Therefore, it is completely legitimate for us to task a committee, whether a special committee or regular committee, to do the work we intend it to do.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

I think that multiple factors have contributed to the very real problem with the Canada-China relationship, whether it be in trade or diplomatic relations. One of the most significant of those factors is likely the fact that Canada is having a hard time understanding that China has become a major world power. I think it is important to understand the phenomenon to know how all this began. For a long time, China's national project, as it was called, involved transforming an empire into a country that would continue to integrate more and more outlying areas. That is how it was, historically speaking.

That caused problems for minorities, as we know, but these were basically internal issues that did not really disrupt the international order. China opened its borders to international trade primarily in the 1990s. This process began in the 1980s, but it accelerated dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s. Since then, the country has seen tremendous growth. It has been doing a lot of catching up and is now on the path to technological dominance in certain sectors. It is very important to understand what China's power is based on.

China's case is somewhat unique in that it has a vast pool of cheap labour at its disposal, due to demographic pressures exerted by rural populations, which have been migrating to cities over the past 20 years and more. China's policy basically consists of attracting as much direct foreign investment as possible. Most of the factories built in China produce goods for export to other markets, such as the United States, Europe and some Asian countries.

We are also seeing the emergence of a Chinese middle class that is huge by western standards. It is about 250 million strong. That is humongous. There is something I should clarify, however. China is often portrayed as just a successful example of trade openness. It is worth noting that the aggressive investment-seeking policy that has enabled China to take its place in the world was largely planned out by Beijing, which maintains strict capital controls. This allows it to control the exchange rate and keep it from rising. That is a problem that the world at large will have to address someday.

As a side note, after the Second World War, monetary matters and trade matters were split up, and two separate institutions were created to control them. After the Second World War, the great 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes warned the authorities, and it turns out he was right. Now let me get back to China.

The Chinese strategy has always been to combine openness to trade with aggressive state intervention. China's strategy was well planned, and, for the most part, the state controls direct foreign investment within its borders. I also want to point out that there is another issue we need to address. This might be the elephant in the room. If one of our committees can take this on, why not? China's presence on the world stage also serves the interests of many multinationals that benefit from low Chinese wages to put downward pressure on labour costs in other manufacturing countries.

China also offers multinational corporations an excellent opportunity to relocate their businesses within its borders. We are all familiar with made-in-China products. I would not be surprised if many of the products in our parliamentary gift shop were made in China. This affects all areas of activity, such as mass distribution, as in the case of Walmart, as well as biotechnology companies. China is actually accumulating various technologies as Chinese companies acquire licences and by making massive investments in countries rich in natural resources such as rare earth elements. In technology, for example, the U.S. has had a negative trade balance with China since 2007, so for more than 10 years.

In a show of China's regional power, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation held a highly successful meeting in Qingdao, China, the same weekend as the G7 summit fiasco in La Malbaie. One decision at this meeting was to adopt common tools. The Chinese president made one announcement after the other.

This new empire and China's new power policy have increased tensions with other countries. Some examples are tensions in the China Sea, increased control over Hong Kong and a hardened position on Taiwan. At the same time, the regime is centralizing and strengthening.

Canada has not managed to adapt in response to all of these changes. However, Canada and China have traditionally had good relations. Canada recognized that the People's Republic of China was the true government of China one year before the Americans. The Americans continued to claim that the Taiwanese government, post-Chiang Kai-shek, was the true representative of China. Taiwan occupied China's seat on the UN Security Council until 1971.

Just two years ago, relations were still rather good. During the Prime Minister's visit in 2017, the Chinese media gave him a pet name. At the time, there was even talk of undertaking a free trade agreement between Canada and China. That would not have been a good idea. The Bloc Québécois would have rejected the idea, but it is a good indication that relations were far from bad.

Ever since then it has been a series of blunders, gaffes and indecision from Canada and relations began to deteriorate. They are now ice cold. China adopted a series of retaliatory measures following the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, blocked imports of Canadian canola and in June 2019, suspended all imports of Canadian meat. That hurt Quebec because the pork industry was exporting large quantities to China. Half of Canadian pork exports comes from Quebec.

The Prime Minister tried to call the President of China, who did not return his call. Even the U.S. asked for Ms. Meng's extradition. The U.S. president has said that he is prepared to intervene and release Ms. Meng if this would result in a good trade deal for the U.S. with China. Canada has always defended itself by stating that the judiciary is independent of the administrative branch and that the government would not intervene, a position that was undermined by the U.S. president's comments.

Furthermore, not having an ambassador in China was not helpful. Even if the conflict with China has real repercussions on trade, this is not a trade conflict per se. It is a diplomatic conflict that must be resolved through diplomacy. In this regard, not having a Canadian ambassador in China for almost 10 months is gross negligence and a serious mistake.

Did Canada have a choice in going ahead with Meng Wanzhou's arrest? That may be a matter for debate. The independence of the judiciary is central to the proper functioning of any lawful society. However, Meng Wanzhou's case is rather unusual because she is not accused of a common law offence.

When the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and imposed harsh sanctions against Iran prohibiting all other nations from doing business with it, Canada, Europe and most other countries condemned the decision and said they would not follow suit. However, by arresting Meng Wanzhou for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran, Canada is endorsing the U.S. decision it condemned.

For years, the Americans imposed a strict embargo against Cuba and even penalized North American enterprises that did business with Cuba. Canada has always refused to co-operate with Washington by enforcing this extraterritorial law, which had a much greater impact on local populations than on the Cuban regime.

Once again, was Canada right to arrest Meng Wanzhou?

That is a legitimate question. We think a special multi-party committee that can take the time to study this issue thoroughly is a good idea.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my colleague.

This is my first question in French. I hope people will be able to understand me, because I am a little rusty.

My colleague's speech was very interesting and raised many very important points.

I would like to ask a question about the rights of minorities in China, linguistic minorities in particular. I would also like to discuss the situation of Tashi Wangchuk, a Tibetan activist imprisoned in China, as well as Tibetans' demands for real autonomy and for language and religious rights. This is clearly a very important issue for the Bloc Québécois.

Can my colleague comment on minority rights in China?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the issue of minority rights is extremely important.

China is not a democracy. We can all agree on that. There is no doubt about it, it is unequivocal, and I think it is clear to everyone. However, should our people suffer because of poor trade relations between the two countries? The answer, of course, is no. If there are human rights violations—which there are—they must be denounced.

However, the boycott approach has never worked in the past and it never does. Take, for example, the embargo against Cuba, which ended up strengthening rather than weakening the regime. Let us also remember that, during the boycott against Iraq, children were dying every month. The boycott approach is not a good thing in itself. In the case of a superpower like China, we would not only punish its people, but also ours.

If we truly want to set an example in our relations with dictatorships, we must also address our arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member opposition was saying and I want to make sure that I properly understood. When it comes to the issue of detaining Ms. Meng, I am not too sure what the Bloc's position is on that. Does the Bloc believe that we should not have detained her? What is their position in regard to that issue?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we just think it is a valid question. If, in such a case, a committee could examine Canada-China relations more broadly, we would welcome that.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, National Bank financial analyst Peter Rutledge said in 2016 that Chinese homebuyers occupied 33% of the total housing volume in Vancouver's real estate market and 14% of purchases in Toronto in 2015.

Would the Bloc Québécois welcome that type of Chinese involvement in the domestic Montreal housing market? Would the Bloc Québécois welcome a study of the role of Chinese homebuyers in the Canadian housing market at large?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, our party is generally very much in favour of economic nationalism.

We will defend our markets, our farmers and our entrepreneurs to the utmost of our abilities. That is a very interesting issue, and one we would be glad to study. I thank the member for suggesting the idea. My colleagues and I find it very intriguing, and we will gladly discuss it. In fact, we have a caucus meeting tomorrow morning.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ethics; the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Forestry Industry; the hon. member for Foothills, International Trade.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues before me, I am going to take a few minutes to thank and recognize some people, since this is the first time I rise in the House for any length of time.

First, I would like to thank the people of Saint-Jean for placing their trust in me. I will work hard to live up to their expectations. I also thank them for allowing me to come home after a short period of exile in Montreal. I thank them for this unexpected opportunity they have given me.

I would also like to thank the Bloc Québécois supporters in my riding, who helped me run an election campaign that favourably compared to, and was even a little bit better, than the campaigns of the other candidates, despite limited resources.

I would like to thank my friends and especially my family who, oddly enough, discovered a passion for politics this year and began to follow the polls and various projections as closely as the hockey stats.

Finally, I would like to thank the polling officials and clerks in Saint-Jean who worked very diligently and quickly so that my election as a Quebec MP was the first to be announced.

That is all I have for acknowledgements.

My colleagues have already delved into the substance of the issue before us, so I would like to focus on the form, on the actual creation of a special committee.

There seems to be a consensus in the House right now about the importance of maintaining healthy diplomatic relations with major international players, such as China in this case. Members also seem to agree that this is a complex issue because it touches on both diplomatic and trade relations, which are inextricably linked.

We all agree on those things, and I think it is important to take the size of this particular trading partner into account along with the substance and weight of the economic issues involved. Everyone agrees that the repercussions are affecting our constituents directly. My western colleagues talked about canola producers, and my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot discussed the challenges facing pork producers. We all agree that this is an important issue.

Bearing all that in mind, what is the role of a committee?

Being new to the House, I took it upon myself to open the big green book, which is such a weighty yet essential tome. I am talking about Bosc and Gagnon, the 2017 edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I consulted it simply to refresh my memory regarding the relevance and purpose of committees. The authors remind us that committees allow us to dig deeper into complex matters and expand our knowledge of these issues.

In contrast to oral question period in the House, which is sometimes more of a question period than an answer period, committee meetings allow members to gather more information, particularly by calling in outside experts and stakeholders. Committees also make recommendations. Committee work helps the House plan for the future and perform better, while oral question period is more of an exercise in complaining about what has been done in the past.

Creating a special committee to study a particular issue, as opposed to referring it to a standing committee, sends different messages. In this case, the House would be creating the special committee and giving it a mandate, instead of allowing a standing committee to decide whether to study an issue. As has been mentioned already, a standing committee could decide that the issue in question does not fall under its mandate and punt it over to other standing committees. We would avoid this by creating a special committee.

Winston Churchill supposedly said that a camel is a horse designed by committee. If we do not create the special committee, I worry that we might end up with no design and no committee.

We would have no answer, and no committee would be mandated by the House to work on the complex file of the China-Canada relationship.

One of the arguments we are hearing through the grapevine against creating a special committee on the Canada-China relationship is that creating such a committee might jeopardize the safety of the hostages being detained in China. There are two issues with that argument.

First, subscribing to that argument undermines the legitimacy of the House. We would be muzzling ourselves for fear of external reprisals. We would be avoiding doing committee work for fear of what another country might think. Taking this argument to its absurd conclusion, would we have to completely stop talking about the Canada-China relationship during question period? Would we have to stop standing committees from choosing to study the matter? Would we have to stop talking about it now? The argument that we should fear the scrutiny and judgment of the country under discussion does not hold water.

Rejecting the creation of a special committee would also send the wrong message to two entities, the first being China. Creating a special committee would be a good opportunity to create the first positive consensus in the House, which is one thing Canadians have asked for, given that they elected a minority government. Creating a special committee would send China the message that we want to find a healthier way of practising diplomacy.

Creating a special committee would send a positive message to the public, our constituents and our voters. In this case, we would be sending a message mainly to our farmers, because it would clearly show them that we do not want this to happen again in the future. By creating a special committee, we would be saying that we want to address the issue of diplomatic relations in order to strengthen and improve our procedures for all the businesses we depend on. We would be showing that we want to move forward.

It seems to me that this is a particularly interesting opportunity to work as a team, to improve ourselves and to properly fulfill our role as parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member is very much aware, I have been talking a lot about the standing committees and the important role they play in Parliament. There have been over 20 standing committees for years, and I believe the Prime Minister has been very consistent over those years.

We have a lot of faith in those committees. In a minority situation, opposition parties have that much more control over standing committees. There is nothing within this proposal from the Conservative Party that could not be done by the foreign affairs committee, for example, if it wanted to deal with it.

Having confidence in our standing committees is important and sets the tone going forward. Would my colleague not agree that it is important that we send a strong message to our standing committees that if there are issues they believe are important for debate, dialogue and study, we have trust in them as committees, and that includes identifying their own witnesses?

This is something that the member's own colleague pointed out in item (k), where this House is trying to dictate to a special or standing committee who the witnesses should be. We believe we should have confidence that the special committees and standing committees are able to determine who their witnesses should be. Would the hon. member not agree with that?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He actually asked me several questions.

I am asked what would prevent a standing committee from addressing the issue. Absolutely nothing would prevent it. The key word to remember is “may”. A standing committee of any kind “may” address the issue, but is not required to do so. However, if the House creates a special committee, the committee will have a clear mandate to do so and will not be able to come to the House without recommendations and without having studied the issue.

I understand my colleague's comments. He seems quite open to discussing the need to improve our diplomatic relations with China. Let us do it properly, without shifting the responsibility for it. We will have a special joint committee to do that. The committee will have, like all other committees, the flexibility it needs to select which witnesses it invites or does not invite.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate today, I think everyone agrees that the issue is an important one.

What I am hearing from the Liberals as their defence for not supporting this motion is that the foreign affairs committee could do it, but I would like to remind members of an example, a motion by the current Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations for a study into murdered and missing indigenous women. That was a parliamentary committee that went for a whole year because the matter was important. It could have been studied by the indigenous committee, but there was a motion by the Liberals in this House to study this issue. They had suggested witnesses and thought it was important, so this is not something new or unique. The Liberals' argument against this motion does not really hold water when it sounds like it is a study they would agree to.

I would ask my colleague to speculate on why the Liberals are objecting in this case, but so many other times have supported this type of committee in the House.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the question was addressed to me or to the government, but I will pick up on that anyway. This is truly a great opportunity to provide a clear mandate to a committee that can study the issue, rather than allowing it to bounce from one standing committee to another.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin on the issues of this opposition day motion today, I just want to take the opportunity to thank the constituents of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner for their overwhelming support that returned me to the House. My thanks to the many volunteers who worked on my campaign. I hope I will do justice in Ottawa for them and the Conservative team. I want to thank my friends and family as well for their continued support.

Before I get into the issues I wanted to make you aware, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time today with my friend the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

I rise today to address the motion put before the House, a motion that is timely and I wholeheartedly support. That is the matter of China.

This is an issue that has been mismanaged by the Prime Minister and the entire Liberal government to date. While all international issues are complex, and there are certainly deep connections in our industries to China as suppliers, manufacturers, consumers and more, there are principles and values that should always be respected.

All members of this House have taken an oath to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. We cannot ensure that safety and security if we ignore our duties and defer difficult choices. It is for that reason, and for the fact that the Liberal government has completely failed to act or lay out any strategy, that the Conservatives have brought forward a motion for the House, not the Prime Minister but the House, to determine the truth and way forward on Huawei, on China and on ensuring that Canada can stand up for its values and its rights.

The evidence on why there is a security threat from China is public and available for all Canadians and parliamentarians to understand. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard from experts on threats facing Canada. To quote Ray Boisvert, the former assistant director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, on whether there is a threat from China, he said:

There's also the issue that China is now in the age of self-admitted “sharp power”, and they exercise that power with very little reservation anymore. There's no longer even a question of hiding their intentions. They are taking a very aggressive approach around resources and intellectual property, and they also are very clear in dealing with dissidents and academics. They've arrested some of them, and they punish others, including academic institutions in North America, at their will, so I think there's a value challenge that Canadians have to consider along with the economic opportunities discussion.

The “sharp power” that Mr. Boisvert referred to has been reported in the news and highlighted in a number of articles. For example, Beijing has openly organized pro-Communist regime protesters in Canada. One such protest was led by a former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister, whom CSIS had raised concerns about given his close ties to China.

China has created pro-Communist regime lobby groups like the Canadian Chinese Political Affairs Committee that publishes pro-China and pro-Huawei articles, suggesting that there was a wave of anti-China hate crimes and that Chinese-Canadians were living in fear. These claims were made with the support and direction of the Chinese Consulate General in Toronto.

These are not the actions of friends or allies, but rather raise serious concerns about the intent and trust between our countries. Not only are they working to undermine the truth and publishing falsehoods in our newspapers, but we know that Communist China has state-sponsored actors actively working to undermine Canadian economic interests.

In 2013, the former Nortel campus was taken over by the Department of National Defence. There were numerous delays in moving to the new location, no doubt hampered by the discovery of listening devices throughout the building.

Nortel was studied by cybersecurity experts who directly linked the demise of Canada's largest technology company, Nortel, to state-sponsored attacks to steal intellectual property. This information was used by foreign competitors to undercut Nortel, and investigators into cyber-attacks on the firm pointed the finger directly back to Huawei, the same firm now wanting to profit and build our mobile telecommunication networks.

China has also been linked to the theft of our research discoveries and to pressure tactics on Canadian university researchers.

Through researchers sent by China, as well as through funding agreements, China can exert pressure on Canadian academics, steal research and direct more opportunities back into its own institutions.

In 2019, Huawei funded $56 million in academic research here in Canada. This prompted a direct warning from CSIS that there was a serious security concern over this partnership and the theft of research and intellectual property. As far as I know, there are still no guidelines from the federal government on how those research agreements with Huawei and the Chinese Communist government organizations should be managed.

It does raise the question, though, that if our national security and intelligence service can be concerned about research agreements, surely the infrastructure that will carry sensitive commercial, economic and social information for the next 20 years is even more critical to protect.

Why has the Liberal government not been able to come to a decision in the last four years? Is the theft of research at academic institutions more sensitive than the daily banking information, phone calls, text messages, emails and more that travel through our work and personal telecommunications infrastructure on a daily basis?

Are we willing to trust that the Communist regime in China will not attempt to do what it has done for decades, to use technology and cyber-espionage to benefit its own companies and the state?

It was not China's repeated violations of Canada that disrupted our relationship with the Communist regime. Canada's relationship with China had been declining for many years, not just because of the threats they issue on our soil to Chinese-born Canadians with family back home or China's outright attacks on Canada through cyber-based espionage, but through its open threats toward Canada's economic interests, our social systems and the human rights and values our country cherishes.

Former Chinese ambassador Lu Shaye warned Canada to “stop the moves that undermine the interests of China”. He suggested that the arrest and detention of Huawei's CFO in Vancouver was backstabbing a friend, and warned of repercussions if the federal government banned Huawei.

I have to say China's Communist regime certainly does not act like a friend. It steals from us, abuses us, threatens Canadians and detains our citizens in that country. That is not how our friends act.

What kind of repercussions could China exact on us? How about what China has already done, namely blocking canola by two of our largest producers, Richardson International and Viterra, with false claims of pests, and blocking exports of soybeans, peas, pork and beef. The economic value of our agriculture exports to China is in excess of $5 billion. Clearly, China knows that it can hurt Canada.

Our response to date has been almost nothing. Farmers are losing their homes, some are selling their farms and some are taking their lives. The response from the government is nothing.

There is endless evidence of the threat that the Communist Chinese government poses to Canada by exerting its “sharp power” and overt attempts to hurt our economy, to push us to accept its way of doing things without question. We would be fools to accept the Chinese government's abuse in the hopes that it might one day turn into a good relationship.

The proposal to strike a new committee would allow all parties in this House to work together, something I know the Liberal Prime Minister wants because he said so in his Speech from the Throne. He said that Canadians were expecting this of us in the House.

Now it is time for the Liberals to put their words into action. Striking a special committee would let us look at all aspects of the issues. Economic, diplomatic, legal and security issues would otherwise span many committees. We cannot allow another year to go by without action and a plan for Canada to deal with these issues.

I urge all members of the House to support the creation of a special committee and to establish it quickly so that we can get to work and address the long-standing issues between our two countries.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as it is my first time on my feet in this Parliament, I would like to congratulate the hon. member who just spoke on his re-election and thank the voters of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for sending me back for a third term here in the House. Like the hon. member, I am ready to get down to work in this minority Parliament.

The member raised a very good point, that this Conservative motion on China provides one of the first opportunities for us to demonstrate as a Parliament that we can work together on important challenges that face Canada.

On international Human Rights Day, I would like to point out that one of the arguments being made on the government side is that any committee could deal with China. We have a whole list of human rights concerns, from the ongoing occupation of Tibet and suppression of Tibetan culture, to the so-called re-education camps of the Uighur Muslims in China.

We have a whole list of those things that might get dealt with in a human rights committee, but they really should be part of our overall approach to China. By having this committee, we can bring those human rights issues along with trade issues into the same committee.

I thank the Conservatives for putting forward this proposal because it will give us the chance to work together and it will give us a chance to address the overall relationship of Canada and China.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate my friend on his re-election.

I too would agree that striking a special committee would allow a new Parliament, a minority government, to demonstrate to Canadians our willingness to work together on issues that are critical for all Canadians, not just Canadians in parts of Canada. Human rights is one aspect that we absolutely have to address.

The concept behind this opposition day motion is that it is a timely response. It does not wait for four, five or six committees to try to address things at a time and on a schedule when it might fit in with other things. We could get at it immediately, and that is the key.

We need to get at this sort of work immediately, because the problems that we are experiencing, the challenges we are facing, are not new and they are not going to go away in a hurry. Addressing them, coming together collectively as Parliament, is what Canadians want us to do. This is a perfect opportunity for us to demonstrate to Canadians that we are serious about working for them in a collaborative fashion.