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]

Madam Speaker, I have appreciated the discussion and the debates for the last few hours. There is no doubt that there is a need for us to have that conversation. We have pointed out the importance of our standing committees. It should not surprise anyone that this is something we have believed in for many years. At the end of the day, a standing committee has the authority to do exactly what is being requested through this special committee.

The question I have for the member opposite is in regard to what the Bloc members were proposing. They were proposing that item (k) be deleted from the motion. I am very much interested in the Conservatives' position on that issue. Dropping item (k) would empower that special committee to determine who the witnesses should be, as opposed to being told by the House who the witnesses would be, and thereby give a vote of confidence to the special committee, whether it is a standing committee or a special committee, by saying it is the group that ultimately makes the determination as to who the witnesses should be.

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

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the reason that we need this special committee struck up now is that the standing committees are not going to be stood up for another two months. It will probably be in February when we will see standing committees actually struck and in operation in the House. We need to have the special committee now.

The threat assessment is real, and it is important that we do have the special committee, because it covers so many different areas: foreign affairs, human rights, trade, national security and national defence. We need to have a special group.

The member for Winnipeg North wants to talk about eliminating one section of the motion. Is it any surprise that we have the Bloc Québécois supporting the Liberals? It is really unfortunate that the people in Quebec wanted to vote for something different from Liberal, so they voted Bloc. Instead what they get is Liberal lite. It is completely disappointing to see them in here pandering to the Liberals and keeping the current Prime Minister in power.

What it comes down to is that this motion has some very strong definitions in it. It would empower members of Parliament to do the work that has to be done to make sure we address this issue head-on.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a few comments for my colleague.

First, I would like to remind him that the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois are not really the same. From his outside perspective, there may appear to be similarities, but that is simply not the case.

Earlier, my colleague from Montarville reminded the House that the motion proposes a first test of the ability of the parties in the House to co-operate. He also mentioned that the Liberals might not like item (k). He suggested removing it to see whether the Liberals would support the motion and whether it could be adopted unanimously. That is what we were talking about.

In closing, I would like to remind members that it is a serious mistake to confuse the Liberal Party with the Bloc Québécois.

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

Madam Speaker, actions speak louder than words, and all I see right now is the Bloc wanting to be the Liberals' BFF. It really does come down to what we have here, which is that these guys have been walking around hand in glove and just loving each other.

Let us get down to the issue at hand. China is destabilizing world trade and world peace and violating human rights in a major way, and it has been going on for some time. It is about time that the government stood up and said something. Its silence is deafening. As long as the government is mute when it comes to dealing with China and is trying to appease the Chinese, it is the work of this House to go ahead and investigate and bring back a report that all parliamentarians could support.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be in the House once again. As this is my first time giving prepared remarks, I would like to thank the people of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill for electing me once again. This time I ran as a Conservative, and I am so pleased that they saw fit to send me back here as a Conservative. I am humbled by the opportunity. I take this responsibility very seriously, and I want to thank all the volunteers and all of the people who supported me from across the country. I would also like to thank my family, without whom I would truly be lost.

We are here to today to talk about a very important motion for a very important point in our history. The Canada-China relationship is probably the greatest diplomatic challenge of our time for Canada. That is why we are proposing the composition of a special committee.

We need a special committee to examine and review all aspects of the Canada-China government relationship because we have standing committees and they are focused on individual subject matter areas. These include foreign affairs, international trade, official languages, and health and well-being. They have many other things that they need to study as well. We want to ensure that those other committees have the opportunity to study the things within their mandate that are important to Canada. However, regarding something of this magnitude, complexity and breadth and depth of scope, we need to examine and review all aspects from foreign affairs, to health and safety, cybersecurity and defence. The only way that we can look at it from a cross-functional perspective is by having a special committee.

That is why we are proposing it. Why is the Canada-China relationship important now? What really is at stake?

In the last five years, we have seen an incredibly rapid deterioration of the relationship. We have seen everything from wrongful and arbitrary imprisonment to pressures on our trade agreements. China buys $4.7 billion of agricultural products from Canada, yet at the moment it is not honouring our trade agreements and punishing our canola farmers. That affects everyday lives. Everyday Canadians are being impacted by the relationship and the failed approach to that relationship.

We are also seeing that we have foreign state-owned resource companies, from natural resources to technology companies, and there is a concern about whether we can protect the viability and the national security interests of Canada. We have seen cyber-attacks from the Chinese government on our Canadian government departments. We are worried about the potential for influence, interference and spying in our telecommunications networks with the introduction of Huawei.

Other countries have taken the step of banning Huawei from their internal communication networks for those very reasons. At the same time, Canada needs to have the opportunity to have a robust discussion, examination and review to understand whether that is the course of action that we need to take.

Everyday Canadians are also facing challenges from the Canada-China relationship with respect to health and safety. We find that we have an overwhelming number of illicit drugs, fentanyl and others, coming into the country and literally killing our citizens. We need to find a way to stop that and prevent that from happening, but the only way we can do that is if we understand the size and the scope of how it is coming in and where it is coming from. We know that the United States has done an initial review. There was a 60 Minutes documentary talking about just how serious this is, leading to a congressional committee that said that the highest number of illicit drugs, including fentanyl, is coming from China into the United States.

Do we have a similar problem here in Canada?

We can talk about defence and security. I mentioned Huawei but there are other mechanisms where our telecommunications, information, banking, and infrastructure are under threat. Money laundering is also possibly an issue that we need to look at, as well as other aspects of espionage.

The Chinese military is the second-largest investment behind the United States at $250 billion. That is significant and something to be concerned about. Some of those investments are going into icebreakers and submarines, which we are finding in Canada's Arctic. The Chinese government is talking about itself as a near-Arctic state. That is an interesting proposal. We would need to understand how that would affect our sovereignty, our security and our ability to leverage the opportunities that Canada's Arctic offers. These are serious issues that affect Canadians not only today but into the future. We need an opportunity to review them and examine them in depth.

China is building 3,000 kilometres of pipeline. It is looking at massive expansion in the belt and road initiative and in many ways having the opportunity to leverage certain countries simply by making investments in their infrastructure.

Those are the types of things that we are competing with. If we are not able to understand how we are going to leverage the resources that we have here, then we are not going to be able to compete in the future.

Then we look at climate change. There is no question that climate change is very important. We need to take action on climate change. China's emissions have gone up exponentially and continue to do so while Canada, although still expanding our economy, is not seeing the same rapid rise in our emissions. We are working to bring them down and we have some of the most advanced, highly technological and environmentally friendly approaches. These opportunities would allow us to help China look at how it can reduce its emissions. This is also another opportunity for us to examine and review how we can best leverage.

Why now? Obviously we have seen a deterioration. We have a Liberal government and a Prime Minister that admires the Chinese government and does not have a strategy and a plan to actively move forward on improving the relationship.

We as parliamentarians are entrusted with the responsibility to have these in-depth reviews and conversations. That is why we have parliamentary committees. This is exactly what we should be doing as parliamentarians. We should bring in experts and stakeholders, and bring Canadians along with us as we do this important review.

That is why we need this committee. That is why it should be an all-party committee. That is what we as parliamentarians can do to fulfill our role. It needs to be an interdisciplinary committee so that we can look at all aspects, understand the complexities and the balances, and make strategic improvements for all Canadians.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions for my colleague across the way.

First, in terms of the position that the Conservative Party is taking on the matter of China, has it consulted with constituents on the Prairies, particularly those in the agricultural sector? Obviously, China represents a major market and the absence of that would be hurtful to many of the folks that the member represents.

My second question has to do not so much with Huawei, but with 5G generally. Many people who we refer to as wearing tinfoil hats are really concerned about that technology and the impact of the radio frequencies used, the possible health implications etc. I am wondering if the Conservatives have heard the same thing and what they think about it.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Chinese are procuring $4.7 billion in agricultural products from Canada. Whether we can get those products to them has a significant impact on our economy, so yes, the farmers are dramatically impacted and we need to understand. If the Chinese do business in Canada and something goes awry, we have a rule of law structure where they can bring challenges. However, in China, the same is not necessarily true.

Absolutely, a part of the research of this committee would be to understand what the impact is, the best way to address it and how we can move forward.

Secondly, for 5G, it is exactly the same thing. I think it is new and we do not have all the information. We could look in depth at the impact from a security perspective and from a national health perspective.

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

Madam Speaker, seeing as this is my first time rising in the 43rd Parliament, I would like to thank the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for again placing their trust on my shoulders.

I agree with the motion. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in the last Parliament and China loomed large in that committee, as it did at the international trade and foreign affairs committee. What I like about establishing a special committee is that it can take all of these separate threads, put them together in a comprehensive report and really look at all those issues.

Over the course of debate, I heard members from the Bloc and the Liberals speak about some concern over item (k) of the motion. I wonder if it is the hon. member's intention to maybe get rid of the item, if we can get more members in this House to support this and then allow the committee to go ahead and call those witnesses as it sees fit, as is mentioned in that particular section.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a really important question because paragraph (k) says that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety and the Canadian ambassador to China be ordered to appear as witnesses from time to time, as the committee sees fit.

If we want this committee to do the very important work that we are asking of it, then from time to time, it may see fit to hear from the Prime Minister, the Chinese ambassador, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety, to adequately inform the committee on the government's position, why it has taken that position and the challenges to it. There is no mandate that says that they must appear. It says from time to time, as the committee sees fit.

If we do not allow the committee to do that, then how will we give the committee the ability to do the real work we are asking of it?

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member of Parliament for Don Valley East.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion. Given that it is my first time speaking in the House in this 43rd Parliament, I want to take a moment to thank my constituents in York Centre for the honour and privilege of returning to represent them in this House.

On the topic at hand, I will start by saying that the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor is arbitrary and unjust, and they should be immediately released. While the debate on this motion has covered a wide range of issues related to the Canada-China relationship, it must not distract from the fundamental underlying question: What is in the best interest of the two Michaels as we mark the grim one-year anniversary of their imprisonment in China? We can have a broader discussion on the merits or lack thereof of this motion, but we must come back to reflect on that question. It must always guide our actions.

The Canada-China relationship is important to our government and to members on all sides of this House. That relationship is important to Canadians across the country. Right now, nothing is more important in the Canada-China relationship than securing the immediate release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. The Prime Minister, the minister, the whole government and parliamentarians across the spectrum continue to work tirelessly to that end.

As chair of the foreign affairs committee in the 42nd Parliament, I had the opportunity to work with the member for Durham in committee, including on this issue. In fact, the member was vice-chair when we studied the issue of consular affairs and tabled a productive report, which the Conservatives supported. One of the fundamental things that we heard, and that members from all sides of the House know, is that sensitive consular issues, like the detention of Canadians abroad, should not be arbitrated in public. It is not in the best interest of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, not in the best interest of their families, and not in the best interest of Canadians.

I bring members' attention to a column in today's Globe and Mail by our esteemed former colleague, Bob Rae. He rightly notes that Canada and China are two very different countries. China is not a democracy, and there are serious human rights issues that must be addressed, but the response to that cannot be yelling into the wind. The response has to be diplomacy and engagement. It is not always easy, and it takes time, but it is what is necessary as Canadians, and we know it is essential.

Today is also Human Rights Day, which marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At a time when leaders around the world are challenging the idea that human rights are universal, we must continue to uphold and protect human rights.

The promotion and protection of human rights are fundamental to Canada's foreign policy and remain an unwavering priority. As we know from our experience at the foreign affairs committee in the last Parliament, Canadians care deeply about international human rights, and our foreign policy reflects that priority.

We are deeply concerned about the ongoing intimidation and repression of ethnic and religious minorities and other vulnerable groups in China, including Tibetan Buddhists, Uighurs and other Muslims, Christians, Falun Gong practitioners, women and girls, and members of the LGBTI community. Our government has also expressed concerns about the shrinking space for civil society in China and the troubling and continued intensification of actions against human rights defenders, like lawyers, journalists and civil society actors.

At every opportunity, the government has consistently called on China to respect the fundamental freedoms of opinion, expression, assembly, association and freedom of religion of all Chinese citizens. We continue to raise human rights and rule of law issues with our Chinese counterparts at all levels. The Prime Minister has done so. The former foreign affairs minister, who is now Deputy Prime Minister, has done so. I know that the new Minister of Foreign Affairs will do so, because human rights are fundamental Canadian values which are fundamental to our foreign policy. Publicly and privately, in multilateral forums and bilateral settings, Canada has consistently called on the Chinese government to address these concerns.

We should also reflect on the cases that the Canadian government, under both parties, have sought to remedy, such as the imprisonment of Canadian Uighur, Huseyin Celil, who has been detained in Xinjiang since 2006.

In my work on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, we studied Canada's engagement in Asia. As part of that study, a group of us, including the member for Durham and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, travelled to Beijing and Hong Kong. We had very frank meetings where we discussed human rights and raised these issues directly with Chinese officials. We know there is a productive way of addressing these concerns that furthers the cause of human rights, but there is also a counterproductive way of doing that. We should be careful that we are not undermining the cause we are seeking to support, particularly when it comes to securing the release of arbitrarily detained Canadians.

When we were in Beijing, we raised a number of issues related to human rights. Canada remains deeply concerned about the human rights situation in the Tibet autonomous region, including increasing restrictions on the freedom of language, culture and religion; freedom of expression; freedom of movement; destruction of historic buildings, temples and mosques; and forced patriotic education of ethnic Tibetans.

Canadians are deeply concerned by the credible reports of the mass detention of Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang, including re-education camps under the pretext of countering extremism. I know that the government shares those concerns and has voiced them publicly.

At China's universal periodic review last year, the government called on China to uphold its human rights obligations and release Uighurs and other Muslims who have been detained arbitrarily, and to end the prosecution and persecution on the basis of religion or belief, including for Muslims, Christians, Tibetan Buddhists and Falun Gong.

This past July and October, Canada joined over 20 countries in calling for unfettered access to Xinjiang for international independent observers, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Last, I know that many Canadians, including my constituents, are concerned about the situation in Hong Kong. With 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong, we have a vested interest in its stability and prosperity and we will always support the right of peaceful protest and Hong Kong's autonomy under the basic law and the one country, two systems framework.

In my former roles as chair of the foreign affairs committee and before that as chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, these issues are dear to me and reflect essential Canadian values.

While this motion and today's debate have covered a wide range of issues, I want to come back to my initial point. We cannot be distracted from the fundamental issue which is what is in the best interests of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. I would ask all members to reflect on that as they consider the motion in the House today.

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

Madam Speaker, let us highlight the motion which involves the creation of a special committee to study these issues. Importantly, the motion does not name specific consular cases. It does not oblige a public study on any specific issue. The member will know that at parliamentary committees and this special committee cutting across a wide variety of policy areas would have the flexibility to approach these studies in the spirit that he put forward.

On that basis, will the member agree that it is important for the motion to pass, to give the committee the mandate and the ability to take action in this area and to do so in a way that reflects the best advice and the most appropriate and strategic way of responding to the challenges he identified?

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, I point out the good work we have done in a range of human rights issues. We know how delicate the issues related to the consular cases and to the relationship in general can be. Those consular cases have priority right now for Canadians, for the government, for so many parliamentarians and also for the families of those detained.

I ask again for members to consider what is in the best interests of moving this issue forward and bringing it to a positive conclusion. I ask members to dwell on that point as they make their decision and rise to vote on the motion later today.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about one of the other issues that has not really been talked about much, which is the threat that fentanyl has been playing in our communities. It has devastated rural regions and downtown areas. In the northern reserves, Fort Albany and Attawapiskat, there are states of emergency.

The difficulty of dealing with fentanyl is much greater than the original opioid crisis because there are these black market labs in China marketing fentanyl on the dark web. There is a necessity to have an international regime where we can target and identify the purveyors and sellers of fentanyl so we can stop this. This is a very difficult issue.

I am asking this across party lines because every one of our communities is affected. I would ask for the member's opinion on how our multilateral international effort will stop the trade in fentanyl through these black market factories?

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay raises a very serious issue. He is absolutely right that this is affecting all areas across the country and constituents in all of our ridings.

As it relates to the debate we are having today regarding this special committee that would look at Canada-China relations, I question whether working with like-minded allies through other international fora might be the better place to deal with this serious and significant problem. The member highlights something that is a real concern. It is something that, as parliamentarians, we have to be aware of and seek to do even more to protect the interests of Canadians and our own constituents.

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

Madam Speaker, this is an important debate to have and having a committee to look at this issue is important. This is not something that is just related to the current government. This goes back quite a way.

When we first opened up trade with China, we did not make human rights part of that agreement, that China improve human rights or that it look at democratizing. This goes back to the 1970s and 1980s.

Of course, with both governments, we had the Canada-China FIPA that was brought forward by the Conservative government, which gives Chinese state-owned corporations extraordinary powers. It is not a reciprocal agreement. The Chinese state-owned corporations have an extraordinary amount of power in that agreement. It is probably the worst trade treaty we have signed.

Should we be making our trade and most favoured nation status contingent on human rights, on environmental standards—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I do have to allow for the answer. I want to remind members that they need to keep their questions short.

The hon. member for York Centre.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to highlight the work of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights during the last Parliament. I had the honour and privilege of chairing that subcommittee for a number of years and also working with members in a consensus way on issues including the plight of Uighurs and human rights around the world.

That subcommittee does incredible work. It again can be highlighted today when human rights are becoming even more important and more at risk as we stand here on Human Rights Day. I suggest that the place to examine those issues related to human rights is the subcommittee.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, this being my first speech in the 43rd Parliament, I would like to thank the residents of Don Valley East for their confidence in me.

I thank the hon. member for raising the vital issue of our relationship with China. As I have been listening to the presentations by various members of Parliament, we need to reflect on the motion itself and whether it would get the intended results.

On this anniversary of the detention of two Canadians, we all share the concerns of getting an early release of the Canadians who were arbitrarily detained. However, would the committee that is being proposed be able to handle that? Are there any existing standing committees that could best address these issues?

The motion talks about a diplomatic crisis. I hope we think through this clearly. How would this committee be charged to take on a diplomatic issue. The standing committees on foreign affairs, trade, security, etc., could deal with issues that have arisen.

As I look at the motion logically, I do not believe it is in the best interest of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor to have the government publicly discuss the ongoing diplomatic efforts to secure their release. There are things that can be discussed in public and there are things that need to be done discreetly. The proposed motion would not allow this.

Our government has been working hard to ensure the release of the two Canadians. We have sought the assistance of other like-minded countries and are grateful to them for their support.

The other aspect of the discussion of the House on this topic focused on our agriculture industry as well.

Our farmers are critical to our economy. Canada and China have a long-standing relationship, spanning almost half a century. China is a priority market for the Canadian agriculture sector and our second-largest trading partner after the United States.

The agriculture industry is very important. Canada is a significant trading nation. We are in the top five exporters of agriculture and agrifood products. We are the world's top exporter of canola, flax, pulse crops and wild blueberries. We are in the top three exporters of wheat and pork. On average, about half of the value of Canada's agriculture product is exported.

Our farmers depend on exports. Well over a third of their wheat crop, two-thirds of their pork, 85% of their canola and 90% of their pulse crops are exported. All told, agriculture and agrifood and fish and seafood trade drive over $66 billion of our exports and contribute $16 billion to our balance of trade. All this economic activity supports jobs, growth and opportunities for Canadians.

We are pleased that through our diplomatic efforts, China restored access to our high-quality Canadian meat last month. Our appointment of Dominic Barton as Canada's ambassador to China enables Canada's advocacy efforts to resolve trade issues, as well as the release of the two Canadians.

Issues like this this do not get resolved without the hard work of our industry and trade officials in the trade area and of course the leadership of Mr. Barton and his diplomatic efforts.

I heard some hon. members mention canola. We continue to work hard to restore our canola markets in China. The canola sector contributes almost $27 billion to Canada's economy and employs a quarter of a million Canadians. Canadians take pride in this industry as it is an innovation by our scientists at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

In April, we formed an industry-government working group, co-chaired by the Canola Council of Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with representatives from the prairie provinces. The working group continues to meet regularly, with discussions focused on developing strategies to resolve the market access issues with China.

In the meanwhile, to help the canola farmers, we have instituted an advance payment program and implemented the stay of default, and extended the deadline of agristability.

The advanced payments program helps producers manage their cash flow concerns throughout the year. We also increased the interest-free cash advances available to canola producers from $100,000 to $500,000 for the 2019 program year. Total advances of up to $1 million are now available for canola and all other commodities, up from $400,000. This change is permanent and will be available beyond 2019.

With our provincial partners, we also extended the agristability enrolment deadline by two months.

I would add that we are working closely with the Canadian canola industry every step of the way. As the president of the Canola Council of Canada said in his recent “speech from the combine”, “The draw bolt of growing the ag sector is cooperation between industry and government, and between the federal and provincial levels of government.”

The canola sector has participated in trade missions to key markets in Asia with both the hon. Minister of International Trade and the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. In her meeting with the G20 agricultural ministers earlier this year in Japan, the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food also took the opportunity to engage the Chinese minister of agriculture and talk about Canada's concerns.

The canola industry has also hailed the appointment of Dominic Barton as Canada's ambassador to China to help advance Canadian interests at this critical time. Most recently, Canada has been meeting with China for formal consultations under the WTO in an effort to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. We continue to push hard to restore business with China.

If our farmers are to take full advantage of sales opportunities around the globe, we absolutely need to address the issues of non-tariff trade barriers, and we need to ensure farmers have the tools they need to compete on the world stage. Canadian farmers can compete with the best the world has to offer, but to do so, they need a level playing field that is clear of barriers to trade.

Our government is standing shoulder to shoulder with Canadians producers and farming families. Canadian farmers should know that we have their backs.

I thank the hon. member for raising the issue. For us to address the multipronged issues of globalization and geopolitics, it is important that we use diplomacy rather than create another bureaucracy that may impede this process.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is lovely to see you in the chair, and congratulations.

I also congratulate the member opposite on her re-election.

The government has been calling on this minority Parliament to work together, and the throne speech talked about the middle class. Certainly, we see the farmers being impacted by China. It talked about climate change. We have heard comments today about China going in the wrong direction on that. We have heard about making lives better, the health of Canadians and the fentanyl crisis.

Would the member not agree that this committee is an example of how a minority Parliament could work together on things that are highlighted in the throne speech and of such importance to Canadians?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for her reappointment.

I come from an area where governance is very important, and effectiveness is important. The standing committees on trade, health and other areas will be able to address the issues she has raised. We cannot create a super-committee that probably does not know what it wants. Does it want diplomacy? Does it want to get people out of jail? Does it want to do trade?

I would suggest that we stick with what we have at the moment and make it work.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to Liberal arguments during the course of debate today, and they seem centred on two particular problems.

Number one is that the Liberals are concerned about the effect this committee would have on Canada's diplomatic efforts with regard to China. This committee would have the ability to go in camera. I trust that its members would treat these issues with the sensitivity they deserve.

The other argument I hear is that there are existing standing committees to look at these issues. Yes, that is true, but standing committees have a lot of pressures on them and a lot of different agendas coming their way. One thing I have learned, being a member of the standing committee on agriculture, is that we often wish we could go a little further. What is needed is to have a special committee to tie all these threads together and issue a comprehensive report on the matter.

Why can my hon. Liberal colleague across the way not see the good in this proposal? This proposal would allow this Parliament to work together over a very important issue, namely the relationship between our country and China.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his election.

If other standing committees are not able to address issues, how will this committee be able to address issues that are of such a geopolitical nature? What are we going to address and where is the focus going to be? Is the focus going to be on agriculture, diplomacy or fentanyl? Without a mechanism or thoroughly thinking through this new creation, I have a problem with it.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member illustrates exactly why this special committee is needed: All roads lead to China, whether it is trade, the fentanyl crisis, the consular crisis, the geopolitical building of islands in the South China Sea, Huawei or 5G. Why would the Liberals not want a committee that allows some of the sensitive elements on the consular or national security side, things like cyber-attacks and these sorts of things, to be handled in camera? This will be the real first test of a minority Parliament.

Will that member undertake to work within her caucus to get members to vote to allow Parliament to have a proper committee that is finite in time to examine these critical issues in Canada-China relations?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have a Canada-China parliamentary association that deals exactly with those issues.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!