Debates of Nov. 17th, 2020

Information Commissioner

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Access to Information Act, a report from the Information Commissioner entitled “Access at issue: The need for leadership—Systemic investigation of the RCMP”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-11, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interparliamentary Delegations

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, five reports of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

The first concerns the CPA EXCO Coordinating Committee meeting, held in London, United Kingdom, from February 27 to 29, 2020.

The second concerns the bilateral visit to the Caribbean, in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, and Bridgetown, Barbados, from January 18 to 24, 2020.

The third concerns the CPA EXCO Coordinating Committee meeting, held in London, United Kingdom, from January 18 to 19, 2020.

The fourth concerns the Westminster Seminar on Effective Parliaments 2019, held in London, United Kingdom, from November 25 to 29, 2019.

The fifth concerns the 64th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, held in Kampala, Uganda, from September 22 to 29, 2019.

Human Rights

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition from my constituents that calls on the Canadian government to invoke the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, otherwise known as the Magnitsky law, against foreign officials responsible for gross human rights violations or acts of corruption. Specifically, the petitioners are calling on the government to deploy all legal sanctions, including the freezing of assets and the barring of entry to Canada, against corrupt officials from China.

Justice

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present e-petition 2767.

The citizens of Canada call upon the Minister of Justice to amend section 8(2) of the Privacy Act to include an additional circumstantial provision that would allow personal information under the control of a federal institution to be disclosed to a third party for the purpose of protecting an individual from interpersonal and domestic violence, otherwise known as Clare's law. This would give us another resource to combat domestic violence.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Foreign Policy Toward China

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

moved:

That, given that (i) the People’s Republic of China, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, is threatening Canada’s national interest and its values, including Canadians of Chinese origin within Canada’s borders, (ii) it is essential that Canada have a strong and principled foreign policy backed by action in concert with its allies, the House call upon the government to: (a) make a decision on Huawei’s involvement in Canada’s 5G network within 30 days of the adoption of this motion; and (b) develop a robust plan, as Australia has done, to combat China’s growing foreign operations here in Canada and its increasing intimidation of Canadians living in Canada, and table it within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The government has logged a number of foreign policy accomplishments. It signed a new free trade agreement with the United States under very difficult circumstances. It also signed a new free trade agreement with the European Union and the Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, most of which was negotiated by the previous government.

Despite these accomplishments, the government's overall foreign policy has been a disappointment. The government came to office telling the world that Canada is back, but the facts say otherwise.

Last June, Canada lost the vote for the UN Security Council seat with 108 votes, which is six fewer votes than Canada got a decade ago. That is six fewer countries today that see Canada as a global leader than did a decade ago. This is a quantitative indictment of the government's foreign policy.

On foreign aid, the government has been a disappointment. It came to office saying that it was going to make Canada a leader in helping the poorest around the world. The opposite has happened. Under the government, official development assistance has declined by 10% to 0.27% of gross national income. Compare this with the previous Conservative government's decade in office, when ODA averaged 0.3% of GNI.

On climate change, the government has been a disappointment. It came to office promising to do better, but the facts say otherwise. Under the government, Canada's emissions have been increasing. In its first full year in office, in 2016, Canada's emissions were 708 megatonnes. In 2018, the last year for which we have data, Canada's emissions rose to 729 megatonnes.

It is on China that the Liberal government has been the biggest disappointment. China is not upholding its responsibility to the rules-based international system. It is ignoring its condition of entry into the WTO. It is manipulating its currency using state-owned enterprises to interfere in other country's economies, infringing on international property and violating international law in its treatment of Canadians Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor, Robert Schellenberg and Huseyin Celil. It violates international law in its treatment of the people of Hong Kong and in its treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, such at the Tibetans and the Uighurs in China. In short, China is threatening our interests and our values.

In that context, it is really important that the Government of Canada speak with a clear, consistent and coherent voice. Unfortunately, that is not happening.

In January of last year, the Prime Minister said he was not going to intervene in the judicial proceeding concerning Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver. The same week, former Canadian ambassador to China, John McCallum, said that the government should intervene and trade Meng Wanzhou for Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

This inconsistency and incoherence have continued into this year. In July, the foreign minister told the House that he is looking into putting sanctions on Chinese officials for their actions with respect to Hong Kong. The very next day the government told Reuters that this was off the table.

In September, the foreign minister told The Globe and Mail that the pursuit of free trade with China was being abandoned, and on the same day, Ambassador Barton, Canada's ambassador to China, was in Edmonton telling an audience, which included the Chinese ambassador to Canada, that Canada should do more in China and expand trade with China.

These are just a few of the many, many examples.

The government itself acknowledges implicitly that its China policy is not working. It has acknowledged it by its recent change in rhetoric on China this fall, and it has acknowledged it by its announcement that it plans to come forward with a new framework on China this fall, by December 24. That is why I have introduced this motion today.

Any new framework on China must include two elements.

First, it must include a decision on Huawei. In May of last year, the government said it would make a decision on Huawei's involvement in Canada's 5G network before the 2019 election. That July it changed its mind and said it would make a decision after the 2019 election.

It has now been more than a year since the last election, and there still has been no decision. It has been years since the government first started deliberating on this decision. The consequence of these years of delay and indecision on the part of the government is threatening Canada's national security. Because of the government's delays on this file, Telus, a major Canadian telecommunications company, went ahead and purchased Huawei's equipment for its network. It installed it in the national capital region, where most of Canada's federal government offices are, including the RCMP, CSIS, the Department of National Defence and other military installations, despite having reached an agreement with the federal government not to use Huawei's equipment in the region. Reports now indicate the federal government is scrambling to get Telus to remove its equipment, which has now been installed on some 80 towers and sites in the national capital region. Under article 7 of China's national intelligence law, Huawei must support, assist and co-operate with China's intelligence activities.

The government's lack of action on Huawei demonstrates something else: the yawning gap between its rhetoric and reality. The government said it believes in multilateralism, but when given the opportunity fails to act. Huawei is a good case in point. Four of the Five Eyes intelligence partners, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom, have banned or put restrictions on Huawei's involvement in their networks. Canada is unilaterally alone in failing to take action.

It is long past time for the government to make a decision on Huawei. No framework on China is complete without it. Any new framework on China must also include a robust plan to counter China's subversive operations here in Canada. China, through its agents and foreign operations here on our soil, is threatening our national interests and values. It is intimidating Canadians, particularly Canadians of Chinese origin. It is spying on and cyber-attacking our citizens, companies and the federal government itself. It is spreading disinformation. It is engaging in elite capture: the provision of monetary inducements, in sinecure, to retired bureaucrats and retired politicians. It is providing financial support for research institutes that support Beijing's positions, such as the Confucius Institute. It is co-opting Chinese language media and local organizations on the ground to promote Beijing's interests. It is surveilling and organizing Chinese foreign students at Canadian universities to stifle on-campus debate and threaten others, as it has done at the University of Toronto and McMaster University. It is interfering in the Chinese community by mobilizing political support against those who do not support Beijing.

There are countless examples of China's influence operations here in Canada documented by CSIS, the RCMP, Amnesty International and the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations of the House. Any new framework on China must include a plan that does more to protect Canadians from China's foreign influence operations here in Canada as our allies, such as Australia, have already done.

The government came to office talking about responsible conviction. That was jettisoned for Canada being an essential country. We now get a new framework on China. Any new framework must include a decision on Huawei and a robust plan to protect Canadian citizens and interests from China's subversive foreign influence operations here on Canadian soil.

I have a final point on the timing in the motion. The motion calls on the government to make these two decisions within 30 days. The government has announced for months that it is coming forward with a new framework on China by the end of this fall, which ends on December 21, so the timing of the motion's provisions is very reasonable. That is why I have introduced this motion. I hope members will support it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly address something my colleague said at the beginning of his comments about increased emissions in Canada. I think it is all relative. I am sure as we look back on 2020 that, as a result of COVID-19, we will see an economic underperformance and that those emissions will be lower than before. I wonder if he is interested in qualifying his statement to reflect the fact that things are relative, and perhaps wants to compare that with the economy.

Specifically with respect to the motion my colleague has introduced today, I respect the fact he has come up with the 30 days based on the timeline and his calculation back from the end of the fall. Does this mean that he is open to possibly extending that timeline slightly to make sure there is all the information, and that proper attention can be paid to such an important response?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are open to looking at any amendments that any member of the House proposes. We will have to see the substance and the details of the amendment before we make a decision.

With respect to the member's earlier question on climate change, I will paraphrase Canada's Ambassador to the United Nations, Bob Rae. Declining national income is no way to meet either Canada's overseas development assistance goals or our climate change goals.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the motion, overall. We have the same concerns as the ones already mentioned regarding the 30-day deadline.

Why not wait until the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, which the Conservatives themselves asked for, releases its findings?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The reason is very simple. The government has announced that it would present a plan before Christmas to solve the problem of China. As the official opposition, we believe it is very important to take a two-pronged approach. We need a decision regarding the Chinese company Huawei and a plan to address Chinese operations in Canadian territory.

That is why we moved this motion in the House.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills for bringing this motion forward today.

I want to ask my colleague if he believes that Canada needs to bring in legislation to combat foreign interference from China and other state parties here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, in short, the answer is yes, we believe legislation is needed: a new legislative framework to deal with a number of issues. For example, we believe that former senior politicians and former senior bureaucrats should register their contracts, if they are working for a foreign state or an entity controlled by a foreign state. We also believe that there need to be better enforcement tools available to law enforcement to counter these subversive Chinese foreign influence operations on Canadian soil.

Those are just two measures that we believe need new legislation in order to provide the tools necessary to counter these activities.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to attend the speech by my colleague this morning. One thing he failed to mention, and what I am inquiring about, is Canada's leadership when it comes to taking action.

Why is the member not mentioning to Canadians who are watching us that Canada was the first country to suspend an extradition treaty, between Canada and Hong Kong? Why is the member not mentioning to Canadians that Canada suspended the export of sensitive equipment? Why is the member not mentioning to Canadians that we took immigration measures?

I chaired the meeting of the Five Eyes, and I consulted with our British counterparts at every step of the way. Why is the member not mentioning that we are continuing to engage with our partners around the world to show leadership, to take action, and to stand up for Canadian values and interests?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the minister has listened to the debate and is attending today's debate.

With respect to his question, I have acknowledged some of the government's foreign policy accomplishments, particularly in the area of trade. However, I disagree with him on the issue of Hong Kong. The fact of the matter is that other countries were much more vocal about the challenges in Hong Kong in 2019. Canada was not the first to indicate its concerns.

On the issue of immigration from Hong Kong, Canada's plan pales in comparison to that of the United Kingdom, which is allowing admissibility for residency and a path to citizenship for up to 2.9 million residents of Hong Kong through the recognition of the British national overseas passport.

The Minister of Immigration's plan is a pale imitation of that plan, and will merely admit some thousands of Hong Kongers who want to seek asylum here in Canada.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to our motion.

I want to begin by talking about courage. Anyone in a leadership position should expect to have to show some courage. However, just because someone is in a leadership position does not guarantee that he or she is courageous. History is full of examples of leaders who chose appeasement instead of making difficult decisions. Here in Canada, the Prime Minister has chosen to appease China instead of doing what is best for Canada.

Unfortunately, being courageous is never easy. Difficult situations require courage, and our relationship with China's Communist regime has become unacceptable for Canada. When we are faced with a situation where the status quo is unacceptable, we must take action.

Today's motion calls on all of us to act with courage to protect public safety, Canadian industry and Canada's sovereignty. Canadians also know that the Chinese communist dictatorship is no reflection on the Chinese people. We have to be careful not to confuse Chinese people with the Chinese communist regime. It is important to understand that the Chinese communist regime has nothing to do with the population. There is enough evidence that the regime has no interest in its citizens. It has a singular focus on becoming a global power.

Today, our motion is clear. We believe that given that the People’s Republic of China, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, is threatening Canada’s national interest and its values, which are important, including Canadians of Chinese origin within Canada’s borders, it is essential that Canada have a strong and principled foreign policy backed by action in concert with its allies.

We are calling on the House to urge the government to make a decision on Huawei’s involvement in Canada’s 5G network within 30 days of the adoption of this motion. We are calling on the government to develop a robust plan, as Australia has done, to combat China’s growing foreign operations here in Canada and its increasing intimidation of Canadians living in Canada, and table it within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.

When Chinese communists are hurling thinly veiled threats at Canadians living in Hong Kong, we need to do something. When Canadians are being detained on bogus charges, we cannot bury our heads in the sand and claim everything is fine. When pro-communist officials are intimidating Chinese Canadians on Canadian soil, it is impossible to turn a blind eye. When billions of dollars' worth of intellectual property belonging to Canada and our allies is being stolen by these same communists, we need to do everything we can to protect it.

Obviously, there is no way to trust them, to work with them or to seek to deepen our relationship with them. Friendship requires trust, and we simply cannot trust them. Some will say that we need to be careful about criticizing these communists so as not to make enemies. However, if this communist regime was really Canada's friend, its actions would show it, and that is not currently the case. What is more, in Parliament, only the Prime Minister has publicly stated his affection for China's communist model.

As a former solider, I was taught not to be afraid of the enemy. In our capacity as elected officials, friends come and go and we also make enemies. However, the way I feel about having enemies makes me think of a poem I heard recently by British poet Charles Mackay. It reads as follows:

You have no enemies, you say?
Alas! my friend, the boast is poor;
He who has mingled in the fray
Of duty, that the brave endure,
Must have made foes! If you have none,
Small is the work that you have done.
You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,
You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,
You’ve never turned the wrong to right,
You’ve been a coward in the fight.

The Prime Minister needs to be brave. He must ban Huawei and protect Canadians from the influence and intimidation of the Chinese Communist Party.

Huawei's participation in Canada's telecommunications networks is unacceptable. Huawei is a threat to Canada's national security. It is a well-known fact that under Chinese law, Huawei must support, assist and co-operate with China's intelligence services.

If the Prime Minister cannot see the threat, it is only because he is hiding his head in the sand, unless there is another reason. The Liberal government is dithering, but it must make a decision on the possible participation of Huawei in Canada's 5G network.

I would remind the Prime Minister that on May 1, 2019, the then Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Ralph Goodale, stated that the government would make a decision about Huawei before the 2019 general election. On July 30, 2019, former minister Goodale stated that he would announce the decision after the election. Today, more than one year after the election, we still have not heard from the government on the Huawei file. It takes courage to make decisions, and that is what we expect from a government.

Everyone knows that Canada is currently the only member of Five Eyes that has not banned Huawei from its networks. Yes, England has conducted an analysis and walked back its decision. However, it is clear that countries unanimously recognize the danger of installing Huawei 5G technology in their networks.

The world is watching Canada to see whether the Prime Minister will take our country's security seriously. We would be having a different debate if all the stories about Huawei were made up or stemmed from a war between competitors, or if people believed that the Conservatives were trying to promote a given company over Huawei. We would be talking about competition among large corporations looking for an opportunity to make billions with Canadian networks. That, however, is not the case.

Two years ago I had the opportunity to meet with senior officials from the FBI, the Pentagon and the CIA in Washington. I also met with cybersecurity experts in San Francisco. Every single one of them warned me of the danger. I asked whether they were just touting their president's position, but they told me no. These were public servants, directly involved in operations, and their response to me did not appear to be political. It was truly a matter of national security.

I think the evidence is clear, and even our Canadian agencies know this. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has already expressed concerns about Huawei, and the chief of the defence staff has talked about it. At some point, it has to be enough.

Our motion calls on the government to respond within 30 days. Why bother taking 30 days to provide a response when it could respond today? We know the answer and so does the government. It just needs to find the courage to say it out loud and take action. It must tell communist China that Canada will stand up to them.

Canada is a large country with a small population and we are often told to pipe down because China could wipe us out with the snap of a finger. We shall see whether Canadians and the Government of Canada will be courageous and stand up to communist China by taking the necessary measures.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention. I have a great deal of respect for him, first for his service to our country, but also in his role as an MP.

He talked about courage. Two individuals who have shown a great deal of courage so far are Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who were detained in an arbitrary and coercive manner, which Canada has denounced. I too denounced this situation around the world, noting that we are not talking about two Canadians, but two citizens of a liberal democracy who are being detained arbitrarily.

I have a question for my colleague. While all Canadians must unite, put political considerations aside and speak with one voice as we have many times throughout history, how does the Conservative Party plan to join its voice to that of the government to call for the immediate release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for whom I also have a lot of respect.

I think it has been pretty clear from the beginning that the Conservative Party has always been a strong advocate for the release of the two Michaels. We have often asked questions about this. Of course the minister and his government are making diplomatic efforts as best they can to secure the release of the two Michaels. Of course we support any and all such attempts.

Still, all the other files we are discussing today, including 5G technology and Huawei, are matters of national security, and we also need to take action in that regard. We therefore need to find a balance between the detention of the two Michaels and what needs to be done to protect the interests of Canadians.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at least this motion has the merit of putting something very important into perspective, namely our relationship with China.

However, I want to repeat our question to the Conservative Party, which has said that it is open to being flexible. The motion proposes bringing forward a plan dealing with a rather complex relationship and doing so within 30 days. We always hear that if it were so simple, it would have been done already.

Does the member think this is realistic?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We included the 30-day deadline in our motion because we think it is entirely reasonable. Given that this situation has been going on for quite some time, plans are already in place. If plans are not in place, then there is a problem on the government's end. Plans for the Huawei decision and for the rest of our motion are ready. All we are waiting for is for those plans to be tabled and implemented.

As such, I think 30 days will suffice.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2014, the Stephen Harper Conservative government signed the FIPA with China, an agreement that arguably benefited China more than it did Canada.

Does the hon. member regret that the Conservative government signed that agreement, given that it now exposes us to an expensive lawsuit if we exclude Huawei from our 5G network?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am not as familiar with the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. I believe it is about protecting foreign investment.

If the agreement did not produce good results for one of the parties, I am certainly open to amending it. Clearly, we are putting pressure on the government and condemning some of its actions. Were previous governments, either Conservative or Liberal, always 100% successful? No, and bad decisions may have been made at times. Today we are here to make changes. This is 2020, and Canada simply cannot keep doing business with China like this. That is why we need to look to the future and take the necessary steps.

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

Mr. Speaker, in December 2019 I spoke in favour of a Canada-China special relations committee, because the Minister of Foreign Affairs had said publicly that there was no framework on China. Unfortunately, due to the prorogation by the government, that particular committee lost a lot of time. During that time, just prior to the prorogation, we heard at the committee from citizens who said that they had been intimidated by Communist Chinese government operatives here in Canada. Yesterday, the Minister of Immigration said he had never cancelled any permit to be in Canada.

Does the member believe that the government is allowing this kind of intimidation and has been silent? How many more times do we need to hear that this is a problem in Canada before the government acts?

I would like the member to speak on this concern.