Debates of Dec. 10th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Proposed special committee on Canada-China relations

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

Mr. Speaker, the member just said it. The issues at hand are not new and they are not going to go away. One thing for sure is that 20-plus standing committees will be convening in a relatively short time period and parliamentarians will be afforded the opportunity to sit on each and every committee and determine what sort of issues they want to deal with.

We cite the foreign affairs committee because that committee has already started to have some dialogue on this issue. There will be some background information within that committee from a historical perspective.

I am having a difficult time trying to understand what this proposed committee will be able to do that the current standing committee, if it was constituted, would not be able to do. I do not quite make the connection.

Whenever there is going to be an international issue with another country, are we going to anticipate that a special committee will be requested, or can we say we have confidence in our standing committees and the membership on those committees?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important. These issues are not new. They are ongoing, but the critical thing is that they are escalating. They are getting worse, and they require a response that we have not been able to accomplish to date. We have had four years and vast committees studying various issues and obviously we are not getting to a point where it is making things better.

It is also important to note that having a special committee that focuses on China issues would amalgamate our efforts rather than being disjointed and disconnected with a multitude of committees and then trying to bring those together in a concerted fashion.

We would do an injustice to the importance of this study without having a very capable group of individuals from all parties to focus solely on this issue and not be distracted by other issues of government that we have to do in each of our committees.

I hope that my friend across the way would see that this is something we can work on together. It would improve the expectations Canadians have of us as well as what we are trying to accomplish, which is to care for Canadians, their security and their economic stability, as well as trying to improve relations where we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the good people of Wellington—Halton Hills for returning me to the House to represent them, and I hope I am able to work as hard as I can to represent their interests and their concerns here on the floor of the House of Commons.

I support the motion, and I encourage all members of the House to do so, because things have changed with China. In the last year, we have seen the detention of the two Michaels, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. We have seen an increasingly hostile and aggressive government in Beijing that has put trade sanctions on the export of Canadian beef, pork and canola to China. We have seen a Chinese ambassador to Canada accuse the Canadian government of being white supremacists. That is just here in Canada.

Internationally, we have seen China intimidate and export its suppression of free speech and human rights by using economic blackmail. We have seen how they handled the issue when the Houston Rockets general manager spoke out on Hong Kong, or when a video game maker, Blizzard, encountered a gamer who expressed his views on the issue of Hong Kong.

We have seen what they have done with productions like South Park, which made a satire of the policies in China, and we have seen what they have done more recently with big business in this country, when they threatened Air Canada because it would list Taipei as being in Taiwan rather than as being part of mainland China. They are taking an increasingly aggressive and hostile stance and using economic blackmail to export values that run contrary to the values this country is based on, such as the rule of law, human rights, free expression and so many of the things that we cherish here in this country.

They have been acting belligerently in the South China Sea, in the construction of new islands to extend their sphere of sovereignty and in failing to recognize the treaty to which they are a party, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which they are a signatory, as is Canada, and under which process of the United Nations their territorial claims in the South China Sea were denied, yet they fail to acknowledge those rulings.

More broadly, as a Christian, I feel quite strongly that people of all faiths should be able to enjoy religious liberty, whether they are Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims or people of any particular religious faith. In recent months, information has come to light about the shocking concentration camps of Uighurs in western China. It is now being reported that up to one million Uighurs are in concentration camps. I use that term deliberately, because that is what they are. They are camps that are housing families and individuals separated under austere and harsh conditions, and they are using torture techniques to deprogram them and to reprogram them as the Chinese state sees fit.

As a western country that 75 years ago fought on the beaches of Normandy, that fought for the liberation of Europe against the tyranny of totalitarianism and Nazism, we cannot stand silently by, when, because of this information, we are witness to the largest human rights abuse taking place today on this planet. That is no longer speculation; it is an incontrovertible fact. There are satellite images of these camps. There is now well-documented evidence from people who have fled, and we now know that up to one million Uighurs are in these concentration camps. We cannot ignore that fact any longer.

That is why we need, as a country, a new approach and why the Government of Canada needs to take a look at the Canada-China relationship, why it needs to reset the relationship and why a parliamentary committee, a legislative committee of Parliament, should be established to take a look at resetting this relationship.

It is clear from the government's actions in the last year that it is not interested in resetting the relationship. In fact, reading through the tea leaves of the government's actions, it is clear that it wants to continue business as usual. It is clear in the appointment of the Minister of Foreign Affairs; it is clear in the appointment of the Minister of International Trade; and it is clear in the appointment of Ambassador Dominic Barton. All three of those appointments are pro-business appointments that the pro-China business lobby wants. That is a strong signal to Canadians and to the world that the Canadian government believes that we can continue as usual and that the events of the last year or so have not made a difference in its view on how to deal with China.

I could not disagree more strongly. That is why we need a special legislative committee of this House, which is not under the authority of the executive branch of government, to take a look at this relationship, to call expert witnesses, in camera and in public, and to come forward with a report for the floor of this House to consider a reset in that relationship.

I will finish by saying that the Chinese government needs to understand that the approach it has been taking with Canada, and with countries like Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom, is not working. In fact, recent polls show that a majority of Canadians are opposed to having Huawei build Canada's 5G network. The Pew Research Center in the United States has done polling of China's neighbouring countries and found negative and declining favourability ratings for China in southeast Asia. It finds the same results here in North America and in Europe, and the European Union has listed China as a systemic rival.

All this bellicosity and belligerence on the part of China is not working, but it seems to me that the current government in this country is completely naive and oblivious to this changing reality. That is why we need a committee independent of the PMO and the executive branch of government to study these issues and to take a serious look at resetting this relationship with a view to considering decoupling our relationship with China and reorienting Canada away from China and that part of the Pacific, toward parts of the world that not only share our values but have large economies that we can broaden and deepen trade ties with.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member well, in the sense that he was here in 2012 when then prime minister Stephen Harper took a trip to China. John Baird, the foreign affairs minister at the time, did a lot of background work for that particular visit.

There was actually an agreement, and I believe it was the Canada-China agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments. It led to millions of dollars coming to Canada, through China buying specific natural resources in certain areas.

I am wondering if the member could give his thoughts as to what has changed since 2012, without stating the obvious. Our hearts go out to the two Michaels and we want to see their case resolved. I do not think there is a person in this House who does not want to see that issue resolved with them coming home as quickly as possible.

Maybe the member could highlight what he believes are the most significant changes from 2012, when Stephen Harper was in China and he came back saying that we had this wonderful agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think a lot has changed, setting aside the issue of the two Canadians detained in China. What has changed is that China has increasingly used economic blackmail, whether with respect to the National Basketball Association and the general manager of the Houston Rockets, or with respect to video game manufacturers or producers of Hollywood content, or with respect to Air Canada, which was threatened by China when it listed Taipei as being in Taiwan on the signboards at Pearson Airport. China has done other things in this country. It has clearly attacked Canadian farmers on the issue of pork, beef and canola. Since 2012, it has acted in an increasingly belligerent manner toward its neighbours in southeast Asia. It has embarked, at a cutthroat pace, on building a blue-water navy.

Most important, we did not know in 2012 that up to a million Uighurs were in concentration camps. There is a systemic campaign by Beijing to wipe out the Uighurs in western China in a genocidal manner, and I use that term deliberately because it is systematic and it is comprehensive. That truly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, there has to be time for one more question, which I am sure the member is anxious to hear.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my colleague an opportunity to share some thoughts.

Here we are in a new Parliament. We are in a minority setting, with the same Prime Minister and many of the same players in the government, with a chance to speak of Canada having a broken relationship. Coming from western Canada, I am deeply concerned about the billions of dollars' worth of agricultural products that are no longer being sold in China, the kinds of opportunities for our economic well-being that are no longer being acted upon and the way in which the government has allowed a key relationship to be broken, something that is having a devastating impact on people in my part of the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say this in response to the economic concerns that have been voiced by many about our relationship with China. More important than economic concerns are the principles and values on which this country is founded, principles such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Those are the very principles we risk undermining and doing away with if we continue to focus on the economic consequences of taking a reset and decoupling in our China relationship.

In the long run, our future prosperity will be assured if we get those three foundational principles of this country right and continue to defend them.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a lot of dialogue on this issue today. I want to try break the issue down into two or three parts, but I will begin by talking about the process. The process is important, because we want to make sure as much as possible that we are getting off on the right foot.

There has always been a great deal of support for our standing committees, and that has been clearly demonstrated over the last four years. Even in the days when I was in opposition, I have always highlighted the importance of the role our standing committees play in the parliamentary precinct and the fine work they do for Canadians in all regions of our country. I think we often underestimate how important that role can be.

I will highlight some of the questions I have put forward to a number of members opposite.

First, I have been trying as much as I could to challenge them to tell me why they believe a standing committee would not be able to do what this special committee they are proposing would be able to do.

The House will do whatever it wants to do with regard to the motion. We will have to wait for the vote itself, but I am fairly uncomfortable with it, and I will say why.

We are at the beginning of a session, relatively speaking, and when we came out of the last election, there was a fairly clear message that had been sent to all of us. The message was that Canadians want this Parliament to work. They want to see a higher sense of responsibility, co-operation and so forth.

If given a little time, I believe I could identify quite easily a dozen or so issues that I could bring to the fore for the next 12 consecutive days in which we sit. I could say that the issues were so very important that they were vital to Canadian interests, and by God, we should establish a special committee of the House of Commons so that members could give it thorough debate and discussion and call witnesses and so forth. I am actually convinced of it, and that is just on my own. If I were allowed the opportunity and time to sit down with many of the colleagues on both sides of this House, I could more than quadruple that list. I could come up with virtually an endless list of issues for which we could have special committees of this House and ask the special committee, in the name of doing good for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, to debate those issues in the form of a special committee.

However, I would suggest that we do not need to do that, because we have very able-minded parliamentarians on all sides of this House who would be afforded the opportunity to sit down in standing committees, and there are a good number of standing committees. I believe there are 24 standing committees. Maybe someone at the Clerk's office can let me know if I am wrong.

Each one of those committees will have a chair and several vice-chairs. Each one of those committees will have opposition majorities when it comes to setting the agenda. Therefore, if members really believe in co-operation, and I hear a lot of individuals say that co-operation is good and they want to work towards it, does that mean that when it comes to committees, we should then strive to achieve a consensus in a minority situation, as opposed to a simple majority vote? Are members prepared to say that in certain situations, we should be looking for consensus on certain topics as we go into the committee stage?

I suspect that often we will find that this decision will be determined at the standing committee in question. The personalities and the makeup of that committee will ultimately determine how that committee is going to perform into the future, over the next six months, 18 months, three years or whatever the mandate is going to be. I would say to new members and to members who have not participated on standing committees in the past that these standing committees really vary with respect to the types of things they are able to accomplish. I would argue that we have had first-class reports from the standing committees. They have done an outstanding job.

Their scope is very wide. If a committee wants to study x, y and z, even if it is not specifically directed to do so, there might be an indirect link to it, and that committee would have the authority to do so if that is the will of the committee.

One of the first things a committee will do after it elects a chair and the vice-chairs is establish a steering committee or subcommittee. That committee will determine the important issues that it needs to face over the next x number of weeks, months or even possibly years. Some of the debates that are taking place here, in particular the one question I had posed, show that this is not a new issue, nor will it go away. Even opposition members have recognized that they have not clearly demonstrated the urgency. If they believed there was an urgency, I suspect they would be suggesting that there be an emergency debate on the issue. It does not mean it is not important; it is critically important, especially when I think of the Michaels who are being incarcerated.

Yes, China has crossed the line on several occasions. As a government, as a legislative body, the House of Commons does have a critical role to play, but the issue is whether we believe that standing committees of Parliament have that role to play, or are we going to leave it up to the House to be able to trump our standing committees on all occasions by saying that we do not have confidence in that standing committee because we do not believe it will prioritize this issue, so we are going to say what is going to be studied? Further to that, are we now going to tell them who they will call as witnesses? This motion clearly states that the opposition wants to see specific individuals come before that committee.

I would suggest that as parliamentarians and legislators, we have a wonderful opportunity to do something positive with respect to our standing committees. In a minority situation, it really opens the door for building a consensus and for bringing parliamentarians together.

I always find it interesting that while it can get fairly heated inside the House of Commons and the partisanship hats often will come on, if we go to some of those standing committees and watch some of the dialogue that takes place, we find that in many of those standing committees it is not the party hat the members are wearing but the parliamentarian hat.

I like to believe that we all represent our constituents first and we want to do what is in the best interests of Canada at all times, but often there is a different hat that is being worn. If we really want to deal with this issue, which is so critically important, I would suggest that the best venue to provide that opportunity is in fact the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It does not have to be limited to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It could be the international trade committee. I will talk a bit about this myself, but we often hear that there are other standing committees that could be dealing with this.

We have an opportunity here in the House to give a vote of confidence to what Canadians want to take place. I believe they want a higher sense of co-operation. They want more responsibility being taken in terms of actions on the floor of the House of Commons.

The Conservatives and opposition members and some others in the House are saying it has to be in the form of a special committee, and quite frankly, they may be in a majority today. I am appealing to members to recognize that we can accomplish something bigger with this debate today by recognizing just how important those standing committees are.

Let us constitute the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. Let us get that committee and subcommittee or steering committee to meet and make the determination. Does it want to study this issue? I suspect it would. It sets its own hours. If it wants to meet for six hours a day for the next 12 months, five days a week, it can do that. It has a great deal of authority, especially in a minority situation.

It is not fair or appropriate to say what has happened in the past four, six or 10 years. We have had eight years now of majority governments, and now we have a minority government. Those individuals who like to say they are parliamentarians who believe in the fine and good work that Parliament does might want to reflect on what I believe is the backbone of the parliamentary institution, that being our standing committees.

In many ways, when we talk about reaching into our communities from coast to coast to coast, when we talk about bringing the type of expertise that is necessary for us as parliamentarians collectively in the House to make good, solid decisions, a lot of that background work could be done through our standing committees.

When I listen to the debate, I realize it is going to be tough for this motion to fail, and if it passes, it passes. I will accept that. After all, it is a minority situation and I will accept it, but yes, I will be somewhat disappointed, because I believe that we have passed on giving a vote of confidence in a very real and tangible way to our standing committees. I suggest that would be a lost opportunity.

Having said that, I want to talk about China.

China is a dictatorship. We all know that. We all have very serious concerns, and we are not the only parliamentarians to have very serious concerns. This could be dated back all the way to the time when we were a confederation, when we came together as a country over 150 years ago. China is a dictatorship, and all the negative issues related to a dictatorship often will surface at different points in time in history.

It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who made significant steps toward softening the relationship between Canada as a democratic country and China as a dictatorship, but he was not alone at the time. The United States of America was doing the same thing, and so did prime ministers who followed, such as Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau.

I remember when Jean Chrétien, I think it was in 1993-94, had the big team Canada mission to China. Liberals, Conservatives and possibly even New Democrats went to China to talk about establishing a healthier and stronger relationship hopefully to deal with some of the issues that go beyond just the economy. Stephen Harper continued it. China does not give a gift of pandas because it does not like someone; the pandas are a gift because it believes there is a relationship. That is what China did with Stephen Harper.

Does it mean that during the times that Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper were prime minister there were not problems? Trust me, there were problems. There were still problems related to human rights and the rule of law. Issues of that nature still existed even during the 1990s and the 10 years of Stephen Harper's government. In the relationship between Canada and China there will always be tension because China is a dictatorship and we are a democracy. We believe in the rule of law. We believe in human rights.

From a Liberal Party perspective, we are the ones who brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We understand how important the rule of law and freedom of speech are, all of the principles of democracy. Do we have concerns? Absolutely, we have concerns. Are we happy with many of the things taking place? Absolutely we are not.

I come from the Prairies and there is a large pork industry in the province of Manitoba. There are more pigs than people in the province of Manitoba and it relies heavily on exports to Asia. The pork industry is very important to Manitoba. Canola and other agricultural commodities are very important to Manitoba. However, as has been pointed out, Manitoba is not going to sell out for the dollar. We must understand and appreciate the importance of having a balance.

Human rights issues are always hot topics in the Liberal caucus and I suspect with all political parties in this chamber. I like to think there is a balance for some members, but the balance has gone a little too far one way or the other and they want to see it rectified. That balance kind of fluctuates depending on which member one talks to, even listening to some of the comments we heard today in the chamber. At the end of the day, where there is consensus is that Canada needs to take action.

Let there be no doubt that Canada has taken action. There is a consequence for what China has been doing. Other countries such as Australia, France, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, those in NATO and more have all recognized the injustice that has taken place between Canada and China and are onside with Canada on the issue. If allowed to continue, this will continue to harm China and its place in the world. Canada and this government, with the support of members, can ensure we have the right balance in protecting and ensuring that human rights always remain a priority for the House of Commons in Ottawa.

To conclude my remarks, I would hope that members across the way would agree with the importance of the issue and that we have within our institution a great opportunity to give a vote of confidence to our standing committees and hopefully a standing committee will take on this role, because it will not be a one-time thing. This will be ongoing in the years ahead.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the hon. member, I was reflecting on the fact that many of us have been here for more than two terms. He described the standing committees as being the solution. He may have served on many different ones, as I have, in both minority and majority governments. When I arrived it was a minority government. Regardless of the ideal situation in a standing committee, there is often much dysfunction because the government's agenda extends through its members in the standing committees. A minority government is different, but I have to say that one of the most hostile situations was the first standing committee that I sat on.

We have an issue here. Let us imagine being one of the family members. The member wants to know why it is urgent that we set up a committee. We need to think of the people that China has detained and think of their families. We have to think of how important that issue is to them. There are all of the other issues that are happening to families who are reliant on their market and many other things such as religious freedom.

Respectfully, if this was to go to standing committees, there would be scattered information coming in without a cohesive group of people doing the work that they should be doing in this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I must interrupt the member. I would ask the member to maybe look at the Speaker so that he can see when the time is running out for his question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I clearly indicated that often it depends on the makeup of the committee itself. I have found some committees to be exceptionally productive. Even in majority situations they can be exceptionally productive. To say there is a government agenda when talking about committees is a fair comment, but equally there is an opposition agenda too. The opposition agenda is not maybe as wonderful or in Canadians' best interest at all times.

At the end of the day, we are talking about a minority situation. We are talking about a mandate from Canadians saying that they want to see more co-operation. We do not need to have a special committee every time an important issue comes to the floor of the House of Commons. What could happen is I could be asking a member across the way why he or she is not calling for a special committee on some issue or another issue. It would be endless in terms of what we could be doing.

We need to have confidence. We are in a great position to have confidence because of many different factors, especially—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, let me offer my sincere congratulations to you on becoming the Assistant Deputy Speaker.

A common theme in the speech of my colleague across the way was urgency. If we look at the issues affecting the Canada-China relationship, whether it is fentanyl that makes its way to our shores that is affecting our communities through the opioids crisis, whether it is what our canola producers are going through, whether it is the detention of Canadians and the multiple human rights concerns, yes, there is a sense of urgency. A special committee is not struck to study a relationship unless something is going seriously wrong. I would argue that the actions of the Chinese government over the past several years have pushed the House of Commons to this point.

We have confidence in the standing committees, but I think if the House were to pass this motion today and establish this special committee to tie all those threads together into one comprehensive area of study and report, it would send a strong message to the Government of China that we have taken notice of its actions and we say, “no more”. We have to put our foot down in the sand. We have to let China know that we are treating this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, equally, one could say that if the House leadership teams of all political parties came together and got the foreign affairs standing committee going and indicated when we would have those meetings so that the committee can set its agenda, it could be just as effective as what is being proposed here and we could give a vote of confidence for our standing committees.

The point is that, at the end of the day, after listening to a lot of debate, I believe there is a lot of common ground. Members from all sides of the House recognize how important it is to have that healthy discussion at the committee level. That is a very strong positive. There are some differing opinions possibly in certain areas, but I am appealing to members at the very least to provide the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs the opportunity. If it wants to do it, great. If it does not, then let us come back.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the floor asked why we needed a separate focus special committee. I believe there is an angle that we have not heard tonight, which is that Canadians brought back a minority government with the largest opposition to that minority in our history because there is not a sense of confidence in the Prime Minister's priorities. This is an example of that. In regard to the China relationship, he praises its dictatorship. His new Minister of Foreign Affairs speaks as though there were some kind of an amazing synergy between the two countries.

My friend spoke about the need to set democracy, human rights and the rule of law as the priorities for what we are as Canadians. We have a Prime Minister who has used the PMO to control many of the committees. On human rights he tells us what our values must be, virtue signalling and reducing freedom of speech and thought. When it comes to the rule of law, the executive branch interfered in the independence of our judicial system regarding SNC-Lavalin.

There is a need in this House for us to work together. There are multiple reasons for that, and one of them is that we need accountability in regard to China. We need it to be done as a whole of government, including this side of the chamber, and so we need—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Other people want to ask questions, so I ask individuals to keep their questions and answers a bit shorter.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of the member's colleagues talked about the government agenda. The government agenda on this is one of wanting to achieve a consensus, a common ground and to work through this very important issue to all Canadians.

I highlighted in my response that often there is an opposition agenda. The comments that the member put on the record just now seem to not necessarily have the same common ground coming from all political entities. We should be talking about how we can expedite getting the two Michaels back to Canada. We should be talking about how we can ensure we are minimizing the damage to our producers. We should be talking about how we can ensure issues surrounding human rights are being looked at. That is where we should be looking for common ground, as opposed to pointing the finger and assassinating the character of any particular individual in the House of Commons.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to be discussing the issue of China in this context because we are having a lot of different issues with China. Members on the other side have brought this up. In my own riding, there is a seniors home owned by a Chinese state-owned corporation that had to be taken over by VIHA. This is a health issue, so we are dealing with health issues as well. How many different committees do we need to bring China to?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that would be determined by the standing committee. We could probably have an endless list of very important critical issues across the country. We could talk about the economy in Alberta and what is happening in the Prairies. We could talk about a health care crisis. We could talk about the environment. We could talk about reconciliation. All of that would be wonderful, I guess, but if we are saying yes to this for a special committee, should we not be saying yes to all of those items? Are they not also important?

This is an issue that is ongoing. We should allow the standing committee to deal with it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on being appointed to the Chair again. The desire you show to be non-partisan and to be fair and equitable is palpable in the way you comport your responsibilities. I congratulate you and I thank for your service to the House.

Also, a very personal and heartfelt thanks to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who reminded the chamber today that economics and politics are not the only thing that is important here. Human dignity and solid principle is, as well as the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I want to thank him for reminding the House that those things are important to Canadians and to this institution.

I want to recap quickly what we have heard today from the Liberal side today and then I will respond to each of them.

The Liberals have said that the foreign affairs committee is the place for this motion to be heard and dealt with. Primarily the member for Winnipeg North has said that. The member for Don Valley West said that this was a complex, important and sensitive issue. He also said that the government was listening to the debate. The member for Scarborough—Guildwood said human rights issues in China were internal issues. Let me address each one of them.

First, let me address the issue about which the member for Winnipeg North continues to speak. He has said that the only place to deal with our motion would be at foreign affairs committee. I would like to quote him from 2015 with respect to a special committee regarding Carter v Canada. He said:

I would also make reference to having a special committee as opposed to any of our current standing committees. It is important to recognize that it is not just the Department of Justice or the Department of Health or the Department of Finance. There are a number of standing committees that might have some interest in the issue. The bottom line is that it is important to have a special committee of the House with the same powers a standing committee has. If we agree to that, we will be on the right track in terms of being able to deliver what Canadians really want to see, and that is some parliamentary leadership on this very important issue.

There are a number of committees that would be concerned about this and that is why we need a special committee. The industry committee would be concerned about the Investment Canada Act and intellectual property. The foreign affairs committee would of course be concerned. The committee I serve on, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, would be concerned. The finance committee would be concerned with the manipulation of the Chinese currency. The public safety would be concerned with Huawei and a number of other issues.

I thank the member for his right and honourable words from 2015.

With regard to the issue being complex and sensitive and the government is listening, if the government really wants to listen to the debate, if it really believes it is complex and sensitive, then why not solicit the expertise of 338 members of Parliament? By the way, it behooves me why the executive does not do this more often anyway. These are individuals. The entire House is elected by the citizens of Canada. To bring about the expertise within this chamber would be good. If the hon. member does not think he has any expertise, he can exit, and that is fine. Forming a special committee on this would be the right thing to do and a timely thing to do, not just for human rights and our own citizens who are incarcerated in China but also for the multiplicity of other things. If the government really wants to listen to this debate, the best thing it could do is agree with the motion to have a special committee.

In regard to human rights issues, the Communist Party of China has persecuted Tibetans, Christians and Falun Gong for decades. We have credible evidence that not only has it persecuted them, jailed them, tortured them, but it has also harvested their organs.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills rightfully talked about the incarceration and manipulation of over one million Uighurs. The Subcommittee on International Human Rights has done two studies in this regard and found credible evidence that it is going on. I already mentioned our own citizens who have been incarcerated, but a permanent resident of Canada, Huseyin Celil, has been incarcerated as well.

All of these issues are profoundly important. However, I want to bring to the attention of the House an event that happened recently with a Chinese Communist Party defector, who is now in Australia. Wang Liqiang said that he was motivated to defect after realizing the Chinese regime's harm to worldwide democracy. According to a news article:

A man claiming to be a Chinese military intelligence agent has defected to Australia, bringing with him a wealth of insider knowledge that backs up longstanding concerns about Beijing’s attempts to subvert and undermine its opponents abroad.

In other words, that means other democracies.

The article continues:

Wang Liqiang revealed an “unprecedented” trove of information on how the communist Chinese regime funds and directs operations to sabotage the democratic movement in Hong Kong, meddle in Taiwanese elections, and infiltrate Australian political circles, according to reports on Nov. 22.

I could go on, but the fact is that this agent has handed over substantial evidence in that regard. China's capability should be very concerning to the Government of Canada, the House and all Canadians.

The fact is that China is weaponizing trade and using it for economic blackmail. Of course China has done that to us as well as other nations. That should be enough of a concern to strike a special committee.

There are credible allegations, and we heard this several times at the subcommittee for international human rights, that diplomats here from the Communist Chinese party have consistently pressured Canadians who are of Chinese origin to go along with their initiatives and to intimidate Uighurs and others who would oppose their regime. However, with a special committee, as I said earlier in one of my questions, should the government want to have some information kept secret, it could easily swear in individuals on that committee to deal with sensitive issues as far as diplomatic things are concerned.

Finally, the government should answer as to why it appointed the recent ambassador, Dominic Barton, who is a former global managing partner at McKinsey & Company. This firm once held a corporate retreat approximately four miles from a concentration camp holding Uighur Muslims, which my colleague referred to earlier. McKinsey has also advised at least 22 of the 100 biggest state-owned firms in China. The ambassador has no diplomatic experience as well. Canadians should know exactly why the Government of Canada appointed a person with those kinds of connections to state-owned enterprises. Knowing what he knows with regard to the Uighur concerns, why is he our representative in Beijing?

Since 1949, the Communist Party has ruled with an iron fist in China. I have mentioned the people, groups and minorities in China that were dealt with by that iron fist. However, one of the things that we have seen on the subcommittee for international human rights is that if one is prepared to persecute, harm, terrorize and jail one's own people, it is a very small step to export that kind of behaviour.

Therefore, the concerns that have been voiced here by many of our members in regards to China's behaviour, with its so-called international partners, should be enough of a concern for the House of Commons, for the Government of Canada, to ensure we strike this special committee. We should not wait until February when we return and when committees are struck. We should begin to gather evidence so the government can make the best decision on how to deal with the diplomatic, human rights, economic and industrial concerns we have with the People's Republic of China.

I want to make it clear that we have no issue with the citizens of China. We have a lot of Canadian citizens today who have immigrated to Canada and are contributing Canadian citizens. The issue we have is with the Communist Party of China and its behaviour internationally, particularly with the Government of Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:15 p.m., and today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending December 10, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.