Debates of Nov. 17th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Foreign Policy Toward China

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

Madam Speaker, I respect the member's views on many of these issues. He has been the chair of the public safety committee among other things.

The member raised specifically some of the research and development that happens on Canadian universities. I absolutely agree with the member that the intimidation of individual Canadians, whether on campus or anywhere in the country, is a non-starter.

I was touring a facility that any of us would jump at an opportunity to see. I asked if the government could do anything. It specifically said that it had asked its security apparatus and political leaders to tell it who it could partner with and under what situations. This is a lingering issue. It is causing not just the intimidation of our citizens but also causing issues with universities as to who they can partner with on research, particularly Chinese companies that may have national security legislation applied to them.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague hits on possibly one of the greatest dilemmas of Canadian life, and that is that we conduct our research in a relatively open fashion, that there is a free, full and fair exchange among colleagues. This is the way scientific knowledge is advanced.

The Chinese government, because of its actions, has brought into question that entire premise of our research. The real question for the universities and all research institutes is who to trust. We are all still feeling our way on who we trust and how we cope with a company and research funding that does not have the best interests of Canadian citizens in mind.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the esteemed member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

Today, we have been discussing the harmful effects of foreign interference and influence in Canada. As we have heard from many others, foreign influence is an insidious practice that undermines Canada's integrity and national sovereignty. I would like to shed some light on how this practice harms individual Canadians as well.

Intimidation by foreign actors on Canadian soil is a very real and pervasive problem. In my riding, it has adversely impacted the ability of ethnic minority diaspora groups to fully participate in experiencing the rights we hold dear as Canadians. Despite being welcomed into our country, they are still unable to exercise free speech, free association and live freely for fear of repercussions taken upon them by bad-faith actors operating under the instruction of foreign government groups or repercussions against family members in their home country. I will highlight a few examples.

Protests organized by Hong Kong democracy supporters in Canada have been met by pro-Beijing counter-protesters who use aggressive, confrontational tactics and who expert observers believe may have been directed or organized by Chinese-state authorities. Face-offs between pro-democracy protesters and pro-Beijing protesters occurred in 2019 in Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa and Richmond, British Columbia, with a pattern of aggressive, threatening and intimidating measures employed by the pro-Beijing contingent.

Media reports indicate that communist China's united front work department has identified overseas students as one of the 12 target groups for ideological guidance and promotion of party policies, important for “consolidating and expanding” the party's base. A 2016 Chinese minister of education document similarly called for networks linking “the motherland, consulates and embassies, overseas student groups and the broad number of students abroad” in order to harness patriotic energy among overseas students.

Certain experts have identified Chinese students and scholar associations as an example of UFWD involvement in the educational sphere abroad. These associations are purportedly tasked with monitoring the thoughts and behaviours of Chinese students on Canadian school campuses and have been central to stifling free speech on topics related to human rights and democracy that are sensitive for the Chinese government. This is further substantiated in the Canadian National Security and Intelligence Committee report released this spring.

In that report, it is mentioned that Canada is aware of an increase in similar cyber intimidation in ethnocultural communities. The report cites information from Five Eyes allies that are also concerned with Russia, Iran and Turkey as nations that deploy broad-based and high-intensity political interference. I have personally heard many more examples that could be shared on how diverse groups in Canada are being targeted, be they Iranians, Uighurs or Falun Gong practitioners. Foreign governments are harassing Canadian citizens and they are desperately seeking help.

I would like to draw attention to the aspirational words but lack of deeds by the government on this topic. During the August 12 sitting of the COVID special committee, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs engaged in an exchange with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill regarding acts of foreign interference. He stated:

The safety and protection of Canadians is paramount to this government. We will never allow any form of foreign interference in Canada by state or non-state actors. Every time there have been allegations, we have taken action with the Minister of Public Safety. We invite any Canadian who might be subject to any form of such actions as have been described to contact law enforcement authorities. We will always defend the freedom and liberty of Canadians in Canada from foreign interference.

In response to this statement, Amnesty International has called Canada’s current efforts hapless, muddled and ineffective. Commentary from human rights groups suggests reporting acts of foreign interference results in no action, as agencies lack co-operation and victims find themselves confusingly referred back and forth between agencies that ultimately decide to drop cases for lack of evidence. They have put forward ideas for solutions, which include the creation of a hotline for complaints and the creation of a counterinterference law similar to the one in effect in Australia. The Australian legislation is well thought out and contains an important provision on communications activities that I believe Canada is sorely in need of.

Australia defends its citizens from the communications akin to propaganda through a proactive disclosure scheme. I have investigated this as an opportunity, but unfortunately I have been advised by our legislative counsel that such a rule would be impossible to apply or enforce in Canada. That is something we must work together to change.

I have written before to express the urgency of non-partisan co-operation on the issues of foreign interference and influence to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety. As parliamentarians, we owe Canadians assurances that their well-being is looked after. I humbly requested that the Minister of Foreign Affairs work with the Minister of Public Safety to provide a list of Canadian authorities that adversely impacted individuals can engage with. I also stressed the need for confidentiality in the reporting process.

I will repeat that as Canadian parliamentarians, we must acknowledge that this clear and present danger should not be allowed to continue. We must show Canadians that Canada is paying attention to these issues and that the ministers themselves are able to act and provide assurances that concerns will be addressed. I have yet to receive such assurances, and Canadians suffering from coercive foreign influence have yet to see action or hear more than an unsupportive statement from their government.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution to this important debate, particularly regarding the intimidation aimed at Canadian citizens by foreign actors specifically.

When I was on the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, we heard from many people who have suffered this intimidation. One thing that was raised is what happens when someone complains that they are being intimidated or threatened by these agents. When this is raised with law enforcement, law enforcement says that it handles criminal cases. There is no one agency assigned to look at this, and that is one of the suggestions that was made.

Does the member believe that the federal government should designate an entity so that we can truly have a serious approach to foreign interference and intimidation against Canadian citizens?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the international human rights groups have suggested, this has been contributing to the confusion felt by the many citizens who are impacted in Canada. They do not know who to call, and when they look to the police department, it does not handle this. When they complain to other departments, they are sent back and forth. As I said in my speech, eventually these cases are dropped and closed.

Therefore, we in Canada need to work together to make sure that something similar to the Australian government's legislation is provided so that Canadians who are influenced by foreign interference can be helped.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Steveston—Richmond East for his speech. I agree with most of the arguments he raised in the House. I have worked with my hon. colleague a few times, including on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. We made a statement concerning the Uighur genocide in Xinjiang, China. My colleague and I share many of our affinities.

Right now I am asking myself this question: Why did the Conservatives absolutely want to include a 30-day deadline in this motion? We in the Bloc québécois find that unrealistic. We agree with the motion, but there are often two angles when we table a motion in the House. There is the political angle, where the other parties vote against the motion because we included something in it that we knew they would disagree with; and then there is the other angle, where we try to get all the parties to support the motion because we really want it to be adopted.

Why did the Conservatives want to keep the 30-day deadline, which we feel is unrealistic? I would like my colleague to explain this to me.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe the 30-day limit is important for imposing a goal on the systemically procrastinating government that is in place.

As we have said, we mentioned our concerns many months ago, and even years ago. There has been aspirational word salad and virtual signalling, with talk and words, but no action.

It is time for Canada to actually draw a line in the sand to make sure that the world takes notice and that Canadians can be protected. We cannot delay this any further. We must take action now. I believe 30 days is a reasonable goal for the government to act on.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on the previous speaker's comments on virtue signalling. He was very passionate about protecting the rights of Canadians. I agree that, indeed, at McMaster there have been some really horrific crackdowns on Uighur support.

The member named some countries. I wonder whether he would extend support to Palestinians who are here and ethnic Sikh and Muslim Indian nationals who are here. They also suffer from foreign interference.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives believe in self-determination and believe in seeking global freedom and democracy in a peaceful, non-violent way.

As we are seeing, foreign interference is infiltrating Canada and the influence is being cast over Canadian citizens, who are our neighbours and friends. Therefore, it is time for Canada to act in protection of our own citizens.

As I mentioned, there are many groups in the country that have voiced their concerns, including Iranians, Saudi Arabians and many other groups around the world that are modelling the Chinese Communist Party's actions—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately time is up. I tried to allow for as much time as I could.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today for the motion brought forward in the House by my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. This is an important motion on Canada's foreign relations and national security and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to it.

In our increasingly digital and interconnected world, security concerns are growing, gaps are becoming more evident and governments are attempting to tackle them. As technology evolves, so do the new challenges of how to ensure it is secure and accessible for the individuals using it. This includes our mobile networks and Internet connections. An issue that goes hand in hand with this is national security.

Governments across the world are thinking more and more about the implications and interconnectedness of national security, infrastructure and trade. Taking national security seriously also means protecting Canada's national interests and our Canadian values from foreign interference. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has been slow to react, allowing foreign actors to go unchecked in our system.

The motion, if passed, would require the government to make a decision on Huawei's involvement in Canada's 5G network within 30 days, fitting within the government's commitment to announce a policy and framework on China this fall, and develop a robust plan to counter China's foreign influence in Canada.

After years of talk, uncertainty for Canadian businesses and citizens, and our allies moving on this without us, the Liberal government still has not put together any plan or made a decision. We are not talking about the Chinese people, but about the People's Republic of China. The risk of allowing Huawei into our 5G networks is well documented, and the case is clear for why the government must ban it from our system.

Huawei's involvement in our telecommunications network poses a threat to national security, as, under Chinese law, Huawei must support, assist and co-operate with Chinese intelligence activities. Experts have stated that if the Chinese communist regime were to ask for it, Huawei would have to hand over the data that it collects.

When we talk about Huawei, we are talking about infrastructure that will be the backbone for other technology, as it is also well documented that Chinese regime enterprises are investing in critical infrastructure and asset projects all over the world. Allowing Huawei into our 5G network could mean allowing China's communist regime the ability to access Canadians' private and personal data, including potentially sensitive data that the Chinese regime could use for its benefit, for intelligence-gathering or to intimidate Canadians of Chinese origin within our own borders, which, as per reports, is occurring now.

Make no mistake. This data could be given, through Huawei, to a regime with a history of human rights abuses. It has jailed democratic and activist dissidents in Hong Kong and has persecuted and mistreated religious minorities, such as the Uighur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists, including putting them into forced labour camps.

We cannot have weak leadership and a naive approach when it comes to dealing with a regime committing these atrocities. We need consistency, a plan and action.

The former public safety minister, Ralph Goodale, was in charge of a 5G review in 2018-19, and decisions kept being pushed off. In May 2019, he said the government would make a decision before the federal election, and then in July 2019, said it would do so after the election. That was a year and a half ago, and now it has been over a year since the election.

The request in this motion is therefore very reasonable. The Liberals cannot say they have not taken action because no one else has or that they have not had the time to review and consult.

Canada is now the only member of the Five Eyes international intelligence organization not to either ban or restrict the use of Huawei 5G equipment. Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom, all like-minded allies of Canada, are our counterparts in the Five Eyes alliance. They have moved on this and Canada has not made a decision. We have heard no plan and we are delayed behind our allies.

We see a trend here where the Liberal government is lagging behind our allies on security decisions and trade negotiations.

In the United States, moving to ban Huawei from its 5G networks was a bipartisan effort, with members from both sides of the aisle coming together.

Last summer, the United Kingdom implemented a full ban on mobile carriers purchasing Huawei's 5G technology. The country's National Cyber Security Centre, a government organization tasked with preventing computer security threats, did a review of the system and agreed with this ban as well as recommending that full-fibre Internet operators transition away from purchasing any new equipment from Huawei.

It is time for the current Liberal government to act. At a time of much uncertainty, this is something the government has full control over and would finally give our citizens and business owners certainty. The motion simply asks for the government to take into account the review that it did two years ago, as well as all of the information at committees and with our allies, and include this in the government's announced China policy framework, which it is working on. The motion also calls upon 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 to table it within 30 days of the adoption of the motion.

The Australian model on this has shown to be a flag bearer of how Canada could also look to respond. According to Reuters, Australia came up with its own plan after its analysis showed that China's Communist regime was posing a threat to Australia's democracy and national sovereignty. The protection of democracy and national sovereignty is fundamental and, day by day, it is showing more and more that Canada must have its own plan in this regard. Another measure Australia announced was introducing a national security test for foreign investments.

Last summer, the committee I was formerly on, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, undertook a study of the Investment Canada Act, including hearing from stakeholders and policy experts on how state-owned enterprises, including those from China, have been able to get into Canada for the purpose of expanding international influence.

Speaking at the committee as a witness, Dr. Charles Burton, senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute's centre for advancing Canada’s interests abroad, as an individual, testified. Having extensive experience in the Canada-China relations sphere, he called Canada's relationship with China one of economic coercion. He went into detail at the committee, explaining the intertwined relationship between Huawei and its executives, the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party. In his assessment, Huawei and indeed all enterprises from China meet the Canadian definition of state-owned enterprises for the purpose of the Investment Canada Act. Many academics have called on Canada to work to limit and counter China's attempts in this realm, going so far as to say that those in China's Communist regime believe that our government lacks the conviction to push back.

Another academic, Dr. Duanjie Chen at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, wrote about concerns regarding the Chinese Communist state strategy to dominate through the acquisition of large companies in other countries. According to Dr. Chen, “[State-owned enterprises] form an integral part of China’s national strategy for global expansion”. Canada's plan to combat China's growing foreign operations, intimidation and influence must include looking at these state-owned enterprises and their involvement in investment in our country.

Another concern some have raised is that foreign state-owned enterprises acquiring Canadian companies can get access to sensitive Canadian intellectual property and reduce the competitiveness of Canadian companies. Mr. Tim Hahlweg, assistant director of requirements at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, also spoke at the industry committee. Mr. Hahlweg stated:

As discussed in our recent public report, state-sponsored economic espionage activities in Canada continue to increase in breadth, depth and potential economic impact. In order to fulfill their national economic, intelligence and military interests, some foreign states engage in espionage activities. Foreign espionage has significant economic ramifications for Canada, including lost jobs, intellectual property, and corporate and tax revenues, as well as competitive advantages.

Mr. Jim Balsillie, chair of the Council of Canadian Innovators, also spoke at the industry committee regarding the Investment Canada Act. Mr. Balsillie described how the act must change to ensure it remains fit for purpose. He stated, “What I see is our policy-makers inviting foreign companies to take our sovereignty and prosperity away.”

It is not just economic intimidation. The federal government must look at the abuses conducted by this regime abroad and also at the influence and scare tactics that we have seen and heard of right on our own soil.

I would like to wrap up today by reiterating my support for this important motion, which will signify to the rest of the world, including our like-minded allies, that Canada is serious about standing up for our national interests and values, as well as having a strong and principled foreign policy backed by action.

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

Madam Speaker, we have seen news over the past year or so that at least two of our major telephone companies have gone with non-Huawei providers of equipment. I think Nokia was one. I forget what the other one was.

Who is left? Is banning Huawei really necessary, in practical terms, to keep it out of our 5G network?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we look at it, there is spending that is happening now, but there are also future capital expenditures that are on hold, which we have heard from a number of organizations, because there is so much uncertainty as to what type of infrastructure they might want to put in. It is a matter of giving certainty to these different organizations.

We also have to look at the fact that we do intelligence sharing. We were talking about the Five Eyes members. We share a lot of intelligence. It is all about being a part of that group, so that we have consistent formats we are using and the ability to share safely.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

Indeed, until very recently, we worked together on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. She alluded to the work we did together, in particular when we invited companies like Huawei or when we examined the Investment Canada Act.

I would like to hear my what my colleague has to say. Is she concerned about security breaches exposing Canadians’ personal information? Also, is she satisfied with the Government of Canada’s response to this issue?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, the member and I did sit on the industry committee together and we did some really good work.

The study that we did really opened things up. We had a lot of testimony. It was great to be on one of the committees that actually sat over the summer. We had some really good testimony that opened up the concerns we have, and I mentioned some of the comments here. We had the Privacy Commissioner there as well over the course of the summer. We discussed our privacy laws and the Investment Canada Act. It became very clear that a lot of these need to be amended and that we are very vulnerable in a lot of ways here in Canada, especially with respect to the Investment Canada Act. There was a lot of concern brought forth through testimony with respect to the mechanisms for these large investments.

There is also a lot of subjectivity left to the minister, which is concerning. We should have good regulations and policies in place and take decisions out of the political realm.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, listening to the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells ask the question suggesting that some of the telecommunications companies have already moved on and have ruled out Huawei, so why would the Canadian government bother to make such a decision, if we think about it, is that not exactly why the Liberal government is slow-walking this decision? It has been studying this issue for two years now and still has not made a decision. Big companies are moving forward. Industry needs decisions.

Do Canadians not deserve to know the government has their best interests at heart, is not afraid to make a decision and will tell Canadians where it stands on this issue?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the conversations I have heard with a number of the telecoms, and of course I cannot speak for them but just being around a lot of those conversations, they are always looking at investments and investments are always changing. There is a lot of different software and hardware, so they are making long-term investments. We know there is a lot of investment that will be happening here over the next 20, 30 or 40 years, and those decisions are made very long term. We can certainly tag on to that. We know with a lot of the infrastructure they can use multiple different formats, so I think this is a matter of giving certainty.

Again going back to our Five Eyes allies, we want to have some consistency so they feel secure in how we are managing our data and infrastructure here.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Outremont today.

I am pleased to rise in the House to address the motion brought forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Canada takes economic security issues very seriously. Gone are the days when security concerns were limited to national security. Increasingly, economic tools are deployed by state and non-state actors that can pose threats to security.

Our government recognizes such economic threats can affect not just traditional national security concerns but also Canada's long-term prosperity and economic competitiveness. Canada is increasingly subject to both of these types of threats to our economic security. Fortunately, our government has responded to this ever-changing environment by utilizing existing regulatory tools as well as creating new initiatives that will protect the integrity and robustness of Canada's economic security.

Protecting Canada's economic security is crucial to ensuring we have a strong economy that provides good, middle-class jobs, provides revenue for important government services and keeps Canada at the frontier of innovation and technological development.

For decades, Canada has been a strong supporter and builder of the rules-based international order. We believe in and support these rules because we know that when companies compete in a predictable and level environment the positive outcomes are tremendous: rising living standards, improved choices for consumers and new technologies that improve quality of life, to name a few.

In short, the rules have helped to support both prosperity and security. For many years, Canada has benefited from these arrangements. China too has been a beneficiary of the multilateral trade system. After joining the WTO, China became much more integrated with the world economy, and in doing so was able to lift hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty.

However, the success of this system is not guaranteed. It must be fostered. It can be undermined when some countries do not abide by the rules or disregard the reciprocity. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, Canada will continue to work with like-minded nations around the world to impress upon China that the approach of coercive diplomacy is not a productive path for itself or for all of us. At times, this extends to the economic field and in turn creates risks to Canada's economic security.

Canada takes a clear-eyed view to such issues. Protecting our market access against arbitrary or retaliatory actions remains paramount for this government. Even when times are good, there are asymmetries when it comes to the economic openness of our systems. Canadian companies have to compete in uneven foreign markets that can be at times tilted by discretionary administration and implicit and explicit favouring of domestic companies, both state-owned and private. Take, for example, China's made in China 2025 industry policy, which not only includes domestic market share targets in emerging industries but also explicitly seeks to substitute imports by favouring the domestic sector.

Canada supports a globalization that is equal for all partners. Canada's economic security concerns are not limited to the economic base. There are also economic tools that create threats to national security. China has a stated policy of civil-military integration, which seeks to reorient civilian technologies, in particular advanced emerging technologies, to dual-use and military ends as this policy is carried out by countless state and non-state actors. This can blur the lines of seemingly beneficial or neutral co-operation between Canadian firms, researchers and their Chinese counterparts.

Fortunately, Canada has robust tools to deal with these challenges. Our government has also responded with new initiatives to protect Canada's economic security. For starters, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry oversees and utilizes the Investment Canada Act to ensure investments coming to Canada are of net benefit and not injurious to national security. The act applies to all investors, regardless of their country of origin.

Further, our government is responsive to changing circumstances. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many companies suffered declines in valuations putting them at risk of opportunistic investment behaviour, ISED responded with a policy statement on foreign investment review and COVID-19. This subjected all state-owned investors or private investors assessed as being closely tied to foreign governments to enhanced scrutiny under the act, among other areas.

Another important component of Canada's economic security tool kit involves support and guidance to Canadians engaged in research. Science and technology is an important domain that contributes to Canada's international competitiveness. The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the intense competition and aggressive targeting of Canada's advanced research. Earlier this year, the Communications Security Establishment and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service published a joint statement assessing that it is near certain that state-sponsored actors have shifted their focus during the pandemic and that Canadian intellectual property represents a valuable target.

The government remains committed to the principles of open science, but espionage and foreign interference activities pose real threats to Canadian research integrity, intellectual property and business interests. Therefore, our government has launched a Safeguarding your Research portal to help Canadian researchers access helpful tools, information and resources to assist them in protecting the knowledge and innovations they are developing.

Through the trade commissioner service and our network of diplomatic missions in China, the government also continues to provide advice to Canadian companies and stakeholders doing business in China to equip them to pursue opportunities when beneficial, while mitigating risks and troubleshooting where necessary. This co-operation helped Canada weather some of its darkest hours during the pandemic, as was the case when our government worked with Chinese authorities and manufacturers on addressing supply shortages in the health sector. China is a key supplier of personal protective equipment in the global supply chains and has accounted for a significant portion of medical supplies procured by the Government of Canada.

These are just some of the actions our government has taken to respond to the threats to Canada's economic security. Despite current difficulties, Canada continues to work with China and industry stakeholders to resolve bilateral commercial challenges. We are not losing sight of the fact that China is and will remain an important commercial partner for Canada while, at the same time, always defending Canada's interests when it comes to economic security.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague knows that Telus and Bell invested in Huawei at loss-leader prices, far below real market value of the other 5G manufacturers, such as Ericsson or others, just to penetrate this sensitive Canadian sector. We also know that Telus and Bell want as much as $1 billion each to compensate for their losses due to their unwise investment, should the government ban the 5G technology they have already installed.

Is that one of the reasons the government has delayed for so long doing what is correct?

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

Madam Speaker, the member would know that I am certainly not privy to the information to be able to give a factual answer to that question. However, I will say that it is my interpretation and my strong belief that the government wants to weigh all of the information before making the decision that it eventually will come to, not being overly influenced by political agenda, but more by having the facts, the data, the intelligence to be able to make a decision. That is why I firmly believe that we will see that information come forward.

I will say that my main concern with this particular motion today really has to do with the timing. I find it unfortunate that when it was presented earlier, the mover of the motion was not open to adjusting the timing to ensure that the proper amount of time was given for the government to be able to complete this work. That leads me to question whether the opposition is just putting this forward in the short time frame that it is in order to score a political win or is it genuinely interested in seeing a fruitful outcome in this and getting the information it is looking for.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, exactly on that point, the government actually has undertaken a study. It has been two years in the making now and Canadians still do not know what the results are.

Why is it that Canadians are still kept in the dark? How much longer do they have to wait? Why will the government not release the information from that review so that everyone is in the know? The other allied countries have moved on with their decisions and Canada is lagging behind. Is it not acceptable.

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

Madam Speaker, I am certain that the government has not chosen to not make the decision in order to just tie up Parliament and to force the member to ask these questions. I am sure that there is rational decision-making that is going into this. As she mentioned, the other four nations in the Five Eyes have already come to their own conclusions based on using their own intelligence and the information that they need to make decisions on their behalf.

We are an autonomous country and we make our own decisions based on the information that we collect in a timely fashion that demonstrates that we are doing the due diligence necessary in order to make that decision.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, in this matter, which is a major national security concern for both Quebec and Canada, there is the issue of industrial and commercial competition in the deployment of the 5G network in Canada.

I understand that there are significant inherent technical, scientific and industrial challenges, but, when it is a matter of national security, why does Canada not invoke the national security clause to foster greater development in high tech, aerospace and telecommunications right here in Quebec and Canada? After all, we are already a major international player in these fields.

I do not understand why we are still at this stage, two years later, when the chief of staff of the armed forces said in January that Canada was behind in finding solutions and in engaging enormous resources here in Quebec and Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think that anybody in this House disagrees with the seriousness of this. Everybody takes this very seriously. I was very happy to see earlier on that one of the very first questions that the Bloc members asked was about the timing of this. I think, before it was even raised on this side, they questioned whether 30 days was long enough.

I do not disagree with the member that this is extremely serious. I think that everybody is taking this very seriously. On this side of the House, it is just with respect to the timing of it, which goes to the amendment that we tried to propose. Unfortunately, the Conservatives were not supportive of that.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion by my colleague from the Conservative Party, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, for whom I have great respect. He has intervened on numerous occasions with respect to our foreign policy on China.

I do feel that, though there is some daylight, on many levels we are very much on the same page. Our Prime Minister has already, on multiple occasions, stated that our government will continue to push back on China’s coercive diplomacy, and will work with our allies to push China to respect the multilateral rules-based order.

We will continue to stand up for our values, and continue to insist on the respect of human rights and freedoms in China. We will not back down from raising our concerns regarding China's repeated violations of human rights, whether in Hong Kong, Xinjiang or elsewhere. We do all of it while demanding the immediate release of our two arbitrarily detained Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

We know that a concerted international or multilateral approach is the most promising track. I am personally optimistic that starting on January 20, we will have a new like-minded administration at the helm of our ally and neighbour to the south, who believes in this type of multilateralism and rules-based order, and who believes that our interests on the world stage align closely. There is opportunity to work with our allies on a strong multilateral approach to China. Canada is well positioned to harness that opportunity, and we should not lose sight of that.

However, allow me to now point out, in response to this motion, what Canadian parliamentarians and our government have already done and continue to do.

In response to China’s imposition of the new national security law in Hong Kong, legislation that threatens the one country, two systems agreement and endangers the freedoms of those living in Hong Kong, Canada has suspended our extradition treaty, banned exports of sensitive materials and announced sweeping new and expanded pathways for residents of Hong Kong to immigrate here to Canada.

Only a few days ago our Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke out against the removal of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy lawmakers, noting that China’s move was in disregard of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, and a further assault on Hong Kong’s freedoms. He qualified these actions as a break of China’s international obligations.

Last month, the subcommittee on international human rights, in the context of its important study on the situation in Xinjiang, tabled a scathing report on the persecution of the Muslim Uighur minority there. The report noted mass detentions, forced labour, state surveillance and population control measures. The report concluded that these were violations of human rights and that these measures were meant to eradicate Uighur culture and religion. This same parliamentary subcommittee also detailed the forced sterilization of Uighur women and girls, forced abortions and forced use of contraceptive devices in a systematic attempt to persecute and possibly eradicate Uighur people.

As a result of all of the evidence before the subcommittee, both in 2018 and 2020, the subcommittee concluded that it was persuaded that the actions of the Chinese Communist Party constitute genocide as laid out in the genocide convention.

Our Parliament has not been silent, and no amount of coercive diplomacy will silence us. It is not only in Parliament and through parliamentarians that Canadians have heard our voice, indeed, the world has heard our voice. Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations has been among the most vocal on the international stage in recent weeks. Ambassador Rae is not known to mince his words.

Whether at home or on the highest of international and multilateral venues, Canada has been vocal, and China has noticed. China has been very quick to respond, indicating that it will retaliate against Canada for our position. Still, we have not wavered, and we will not waver.

The Conservative Party's motion before the House today underscores the fact that we all agree, regardless of our political affiliation, on the importance of adopting a strong foreign policy in conjunction with our allies, based on principles and supported by measures.

I will therefore remind my hon. colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills and every other member in the House that that is exactly what Canada is doing.

In addition to our committees' and subcommittees' reports, findings and conclusions, which are public, and which China has obviously noted and commented on, last month, we joined with 38 other countries in speaking out strongly against China's human rights violations. Along with the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and many other countries, we demanded that the UN be given immediate broad and unfettered access to Xinjiang province.

In June, Canada was one of the 27 countries to speak out against Beinjing's so-called national security law, threatening the freedom of Hong Kong residents. We recently saw the impact of this freedom-destroying law, with the expulsion of four pro-democracy representatives from Hong Kong's legislative council. The remaining pro-democracy members resigned.

We are not naive. China is the second-largest economy in the world. Access to its enormous markets and the opportunities they offer is a must for our producers, but Canada will nevertheless continue to defend our values.

Let me now address the aspect of the motion that I do find highly problematic, which stipulates, in fact dictates, that the government must make a public decision on Huawei within 30 days. I certainly understand and appreciate that colleagues on all sides of this chamber may hold reservations and concerns about any involvement of Huawei in Canada’s 5G networks, but we cannot substitute our personal views for the professional analysis of our national security agencies. We as Parliamentarians cannot murky the waters of our national interest; we cannot compromise national security because of political reasons.

There are numerous factors at play. There are experts at CSIS studying this question. There are ongoing negotiations for the release of the two Canadians being held in captivity in China as we speak. Significantly, it is a poison pill to indicate in this motion that we should choose an arbitrary number of days in order to make a decision public on this matter. I would not want the debate, or any of the arguments that have been raised today by members of the Conservative party or otherwise, to mislead Canadians.

Canada has not granted Huawei access to our 5G networks. If you look at our industry, on the ground right now in Canada, Bell, Telus and Rogers have all announced they will not use Huawei 5G equipment. I will repeat that. Our major Canadian providers have already stated publicly that they will not use Huawei infrastructure for 5G. I understand that what this motion is requesting is that the Government of Canada issue its decision, but to give a 30-day deadline is simply arbitrary and artificial.

It is our national security agencies, CSIS and our Communications Security Establishment, that are studying the question, and as much as I appreciate that their study is taking time, I do not think it is in our national interest or the interests of Canadians to place an arbitrary deadline of 30 days in order to issue this decision.

This is not the first time I have stood in this House to speak out on China, and I fear very much that it will not be the last, and though I may be one of the more hawkish members of our caucus on this issue, I urge my Conservative colleagues to accept the invitation to discuss amendments to this aspect of their motion with our government. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this morning in debate, China poses some of the key foreign policy challenges of our time. I would suggest humbly that we, together in this House, rise above to address them.