Debates of Nov. 17th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Foreign Policy Toward China

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now a member of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations and I participate in the work of that committee. The evidence we heard demonstrates that there is a great deal of intimidation occurring in Canada. Chinese Canadians living here are subject to direct intimidation in Canada. We cannot just ignore that. We must implement measures, whether on our university campuses, in industries or anywhere else. It does not matter whether someone living in Canada is an immigrant or was born here. We must protect our citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to address the motion brought forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and our dear colleague for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I have enormous respect for them both, and I have said it many times in this House.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and China. This anniversary is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the foundations of our relations and how to adapt going forward.

In light of the current challenges, we take a sober view in assessing the relationship 50 years on, considering the importance of mutual respect and reciprocity, adherence to rules and principles, including human rights, and achieving results that are in Canada's interests. While we share long-standing connections that took root well before the establishment of diplomatic relations, today we are facing a difficult reality.

Less than four weeks before the second anniversary of their detention, Canadians are deeply concerned by the arbitrary detentions of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. The use of coercive diplomacy and the ongoing crackdown on freedoms in Hong Kong, human rights violations in Xinjiang and Tibet, not to mention the hostile activities against Canadians, are entirely at odds with Canadian values and interests. Our government continues to be unequivocal on these issues, making sure that our stance is clear to China at all times.

However, we are not alone. It is not only Canada, but many like-minded democracies have raised their voices to challenge China on the question of arbitrary detentions and other human rights abuses in China, most recently in a joint statement on Xinjiang and Hong Kong at the UN General Assembly Third Committee, which was signed by Canada and 38 other states.

It is important that China recognize that its actions harm its reputation in many other countries, not just in Canada, and that it is sending the wrong message to the international community.

In light of China's hardening of its position, and in a broader geostrategic situation, we are adopting an approach to China that has three fundamental pillars: Canada's long-term interests, our principles and values, including human rights, and the rules of international law.

We will do so while continuing to defend and protect Canada and Canadians against activities that harm democratic values, our sovereignty, our economic interests and, of course, as my colleagues mentioned, national security in general.

The promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canada's foreign policy, and we will continue to play a fundamental role in the Government of Canada's engagement with China. We will continue to raise our voice to express our concerns about China's behaviour and failure to abide by its international obligations. The best way to do this is to continue working with our allies and partners to hold the Chinese government accountable and to defend the rules-based international order.

We will also continue to pursue co-operation when it aligns with our national interests. China is a key player in the global commons in the fight against COVID-19, climate change or to ensure the stability of financial markets and global economic development. We are aware that China is and will remain an important commercial partner for Canada. China is also a significant source of tourists and students to Canada, and brings economic and enriching social benefits across our nation. Canada believes in a strategic approach to trading with China. We will also continue to encourage trade diversification.

While co-operation in these areas is beneficial, Canada is taking a clear-eyed view in examining our relationship. We are not alone in recognizing the need for a new approach. Like-minded democracies around the world are adjusting to the new dynamics that have emerged in recent years. As I have said, we will, and we are, continue to engage with China with our eyes wide open.

As part of our assessment, we continue to be seized at all levels of government by the cases of Canadians detained and sentenced arbitrarily in China. It is unacceptable that any citizen, anywhere, be arbitrarily detained.

Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor must be brought home, full stop. This is something for which all Canadians stand united, and I am sure every member of the House as well. The government has been very clear that the detention of these two Canadians is unacceptable. Their arbitrary detentions are something we will speak against at every opportunity. They must be immediately released.

We are encouraged by the fact that Ambassador Barton was able to have consular access to Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor this fall after more than eight months without contact. I personally raised this in a meeting with my counterpart, state councillor Wang Yi, in Rome in August of this year. We have worked on this tirelessly. We continue to request ongoing access to them and to all Canadians who are detained in China.

We also continue to provide all appropriate support for Mr. Robert Schellenberg and oppose the arbitrary decision to issue a death penalty sentence at his retrial. We continue to call on China to grant clemency to Canadians facing death sentences.

As we work to resolve these serious conditions, the government will also continue to provide consular support to them and their families and press for consular access to all Canadians detained in China. I have been talking to their families regularly to update them on what we are doing. We are taking an approach of all hands on deck when it comes to obtaining the release of Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor and other Canadians.

I would now like to talk about what is happening here in Canada. Like many other open and free democracies, Canada is targeted by hostile states looking for information, intelligence and leverage to advance their own interests.

This is not a new threat and is not limited to a single country. More and more, we are seeing governments around the world exposing and countering foreign actions that are detrimental to their interests. Furthermore, state and non-state actors that may present a security threat have greater access to economic tools.

Our government recognizes that such economic threats can affect traditional national security concerns but, as we have heard this morning, these threats can also affect Canada's long-term prosperity, economic competitiveness, and industrial, military and technological advantage.

This situation has been exacerbated by globalization and the use of the Internet and social media platforms.

Hostile actors have better access to cheaper online tools to run operations, which are difficult to track. This has become more apparent during the pandemic. For example, our government has, on a number of occasions, acknowledged the increased risk of foreign interference in and spying on our hardworking biopharmaceutical companies, our university scientific research institutes, the various levels of government and other organizations participating in international efforts to develop a vaccine.

This is why our domestic agencies have been working tirelessly with these entities to raise awareness of the threat and to ensure they have the tools and information they need to protect themselves and their proprietary information. Our government is equally aware of intimidation tactics being used against Canadians in Canada and that is something which is of great concern to me, my colleagues and this government.

State actors target the fabric of Canada's multicultural society, seeking to influence communities, including through pressure and threats. States may attempt to threaten and intimidate individuals outside their country. These tactics can also be used as covers to silence citizens, pressure political opponents and instill a general fear of state power no matter where a person is located.

Any reports of harassment and intimidation of individuals in Canada is troubling and will not be tolerated. We invite Canadians to report any such action to law enforcement officials. CSIS uses the full mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in order to investigate, advise and respond to any threat to the security of Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police will continue to investigate with a view to laying charges under the Criminal Code.

An open and multicultural society is at the heart of our Canadian values. Canadians can be assured that their government takes the threat posed by foreign interference activities very seriously.

Increasingly economic tools are also deployed by state and non-state actors that can pose threats to security and threaten Canada's long-term prosperity and economic competitiveness. 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 playing field, the positive outcomes are tremendous: rising living standards, improved choices for consumers and new technologies that improve the quality of life to name just a few.

However, the success of this system is not guaranteed and it must be fostered. It can be undermined when some countries do not abide by the rules or disregard reciprocity.

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.

First, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry oversees and utilizes the Investment Canada Act to ensure that investments coming to Canada are of a net benefit and are not injurious to national security. The act applies to all investors regardless of the country of origin.

Second, Canada has one of the strongest export control regimes in the world. We have a robust risk assessment framework under the Export and Import Permits Act. Canada also became a party to the Arms Trade Treaty in September of last year. Canada evaluates every export permit application on a case-by-case basis to determine what the goods or technology will be used for, where will they be used and by whom among many other factors.

Through this regulation Canada seeks to mitigate against risks that the exported goods could be used to undermine peace and security, commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law or serious acts of gender-based violence.

There is no doubt that 5G technology has raised some serious security concerns. The government is carefully examining the security challenges and threats related to 5G technology, while recognizing that this technology is key to Canada's future economic development.

Canada's review takes into account technical, economic and national security factors and obviously includes advice from our allies and partners. Canada considers this issue to be an important element in the context of our bilateral relations with the United States. The security of Canadians will be central and critical to how we proceed with the deployment of 5G technology in Canada.

Public Safety Canada, the Communications Security Establishment, the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Global Affairs Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada are working together on this important issue.

Protecting the critical systems and infrastructure Canadians rely on every day is a major priority of the Government of Canada and protecting telecommunications equipment and services from cyber-threats is particularly important. We will ensure that Canadian networks are kept safe and secure at all times and that Canada's public interest is protected.

The government will continue to work with telecommunications service providers and vendors to mitigate security risks in current and future networks as 5G technology is adopted by Canadians.

I would like to submit that China poses some of the key foreign policy challenges of our time. In this context, we must engage with China with eyes wide open. As we adapt our approach to China, given the new realities, Canada will work with partners and allies around the world to defend the rules-based international order in the face of common challenges and continue to hold the Chinese government accountable for its actions and international obligations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that Canadians who are being intimidated and threatened by Chinese agents operating on Canadian soil will have their complaints investigated and pursued. However, as reported in The Globe and Mail on November 10, the reality is that this is not happening.

CSIS spoke to The Globe and Mail and indicated that Chinese agents were actively targeting Canadians in the Chinese community on Canadian soil, but that there was very little action that had been taken on the part of the government to counter that intimidation, unlike what we see in the United States. On October 28 of this fall, the FBI charged eight individuals, including three Chinese citizens, for their involvement in Operation Fox Hunt for intimidating American citizens on American soil.

When was the last time the RCMP or another Canadian police force charged Chinese agents operating in Canada for utilizing similar tactics on Canadian soil?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. When it comes to national security, politics does not have any place in that.

What I have said to Canadians who are watching and to the House is that all our agencies are seized of this issue, that Canadians should report any threats or any actions they experience to law enforcement authorities and that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is seized of this matter and has been consulting with our agencies.

Canadians, and every member of the House, should have the utmost trust that we have the best possible expertise in Canada to ensure we protect Canadians at every step of the way. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness will come forward soon with additional measures to protect the safety and security of Canadians.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is an expression in French about a flood of words in a desert of ideas.

Obviously this expression does not apply to the Minister of Foreign Affairs because he has a lot of ideas and is generous with them, so I do not think that that applies here.

That being said, in his very dense speech, he told us that he was concerned about the security of Canadians, whether it be with regard to the undue influence of the People's Republic of China or with regard to Huawei.

I would just like to know, after that very lengthy speech, whether he is or is not in favour of the motion moved by our Conservative colleagues.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague, for whom I also have enormous respect. We are working hand in hand. When it comes to foreign policy, I think countries like ours need to work together, and it is always a great pleasure for me to work with him on all these issues.

On this side of the House, we recognize that some elements of the motion have merit. I am referring to states' interference in Canada, measures we are taking and the 5G issue, which I addressed in my speech. On this side of the House, we believe that national security must be our top priority. We cannot commit to a specific timeline because all our decisions must be based on ensuring the security of the country, its citizens, and the network we need to build. National security is and will always be our absolute priority. When we are ready, we will present concrete measures.

There are certainly some interesting things in today's motion, but when it comes to a timeline, everyone needs to understand that national security must come first.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is about the Government of China. There are Canadians here who are living in fear because of the efforts to silence dissenting voices by the Chinese government.

However, it is not just the Chinese government. I spoke to members of the Oromo community in my riding who told me stories about being targeted by the Ethiopian government. Canadians are victims of cyber-bullying, threats of sexualized violence, threats of harm to their family members who live overseas, racist insults, intimidation and harassment for speaking out about human rights.

What is the government currently doing and what additional measures can we expect to protect these Canadians who are advocating for human rights and who are being targeted by the Government of China but also by other governments like Ethiopia and others?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is making a very important point and I totally agree with her. Today the motion reflects on China, but we should all be concerned about other state and non-state actors who are trying to unduly influence Canadians. We have seen it in different chapters. The member mentioned certain elements.

When I defended, and continue to defend, the families of flight PS752, we saw Iran trying to interfere. We are aware of it, but I want to reassure Canadians who are watching that this is not unique to Canada. As I think the critic mentioned, in all my interactions and engagement with the Five Eyes, the G7 and other countries, this is something that is concerning to all of us, whether it is cyber-bullying or new cyber-threats. We are really working, as liberal democracies, to make sure we respond to that.

I invite every Canadian, and those who are watching, to immediately report any evidence or attempt to interfere or threaten Canadians to law enforcement authorities so that our agencies can collect the proper evidence to lay charges.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier the minister referenced conversations with the Five Eyes countries, and in particular he referenced the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom, over four months ago, made its decision to ban Huawei.

Again, this is not a new issue. It is a simple question. What is taking so long to make the decision to ban Huawei?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do not think there has been a time when Canada and the U.K. worked more closely together, such as in the matter of Hong Kong. I did hear comments before on our immigration measures. These measures were discussed among the Five Eyes allies, and all of that is coordinated.

To the member's point, he will appreciate that as a country we have to put our national security first. We still have our agencies looking into that and it will come out when we are ready. I assure him there is wide consultation and co-operation among the Five Eyes when it comes to issues like 5G and other national security issues.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to comment on a larger philosophical issue that also applies in this situation, which is to have engagement or not to have engagement. History has shown us that one could have no engagement for a thousand years with a regime or a nation that is abusing human rights, and it would have no effect. I would like him to comment on making progress in human rights through engagement or non-engagement.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in engagement. Engagement is the only way we can interact and hopefully change behaviour. To the point of the motion today, let me be clear to the House that the China of 2020 is not the China of 2016. There will clearly be areas where we will challenge China, for example, when it comes to human rights, as we have been doing, not only on our own but with a number of partners and allies around the world. There will be areas where we will co-exist with all our respective interests. There might be areas where it would be in the best interest and common good of the planet to co-operate to a certain extent, for example, when it comes to climate change and global health.

I do believe in engagement. That is part of the long tradition of foreign policy in Canada. All members in the House should join. When it comes to foreign policy, maybe I am an optimist or a real believer that we can do things together, but I wish we could join together on these big questions, because that is in the national interest of Canada.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate after the speeches from my Conservative colleagues and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

This is another motion similar to what we have come to expect from our Conservative friends. It is a motion that I would say is coming out of left field. It is a rather unexpected motion. I think that the phrase “left field” is quite appropriate in this case because the Conservatives are giving themselves another opportunity to raise the spectre of communism. They have this urge, this fantasy, I would even call it, to harp on the idea that communism must be condemned.

Members will recall that Stephen Harper's government wanted to erect a monument to the victims of communism, as though communism were the only authoritarian regime in human history that has generated a certain number of victims, and as though Canada itself had lived under the yoke of communism, which is not the case, thank goodness. They are always obsessing over the Chinese Communist Party and the dire threat it poses to Canada, Canadians and the entire world.

A few moments ago during questions and comments with the minister, our NDP colleague rightly pointed out that China is definitely not the only country in the world with an authoritarian regime. It is definitely not the only country that openly violates human rights. It is definitely not the only country that tries to unduly influence events in other countries, including Canada.

What is perhaps a little different about China, however, is the fact that western states have often facilitated China's emergence as a superpower and that China aspires to play a predominant, if not dominant, role in international politics. Consequently, the motion moved by our friends in the official opposition raises some very legitimate concerns.

China aspires to a certain role and is taking action to play that role on the world stage. One need only think of the 5G network, which we discussed. I will come back to that in a few moments. China has also developed an entire network in what is known as the new silk road, a network of client states, a network of states that are beholden to the government in Beijing on a whole series of internal decisions or economically. This even includes some European countries, not just countries in Africa or South East Asia. We are talking about certain European countries where the financial influence of the People's Republic of China has become central and decisive and will have an impact on the decisions made by a number of countries all over the world. We must not bury our heads in the sand and ignore this situation, because it is a reality.

Driven by its ambitions, China is engaging in a type of diplomacy that is truly unique in the context of the long tradition of diplomacy in the history of international relations, an extremely aggressive and coercive diplomacy, the kind of diplomacy where a country will even go as far as to take foreign citizens hostage in order to put pressure on their government's decisions.

That is why we cannot take all of this lightly.

That is why the House decided last December to form a special committee to study the Canada-China relationship in order to determine what has led to its deterioration and the motivations behind the decisions that Beijing is making against Canada. Examples include the unjustified imprisonment and detention of two Canadian citizens and the imposition of retaliatory economic measures. All this is completely unjustified. What could possibly be causing the People's Republic of China to behave this way against Canada? Through a motion moved by our friends in the Conservative Party, we formed a committee to look at all of this.

While we are studying all this, however, the Conservative Party comes along with a motion that presumes that the committee's findings are a foregone conclusion. I understand that there is evidence in the motion, and I will come back to that. However, beyond that evidence, there is something that makes me a bit uneasy. In December, the Conservative Party put us, as parliamentarians, in a position where we had to decide whether or not we would create a new committee to examine the Canada-China relationship. We said that might make sense, that we might need to reflect on it and study it at greater length. We decided to support the motion and create that committee.

Now that the committee's work is under way, however, the Conservatives are saying that the motion that we adopted in December is not enough and that they want the government to do more right away. The government has not been standing idly by, because even before the committee finished its work, it announced that it was going to unveil a new policy regarding our relationship with the People's Republic of China. We are currently in the process of examining that, and we may have some suggestions and recommendations for the government.

Yesterday, the Minister of Immigration appeared before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. It was a very interesting meeting, but it left me unsatisfied as a parliamentarian. One of the reasons we invited the Minister of Immigration to appear was the urgent situation regarding Hong Kong. There are defenders of democracy in Hong Kong whose freedom, safety and very lives are being jeopardized by the enforcement of the national security law. The committee found that Canada needs to react and do something to provide a safe haven for these defenders of freedom.

Yesterday, the minister rattled off a whole series of pre-planned answers about how mechanisms already exist for welcoming refugees. However, this is a completely extraordinary situation, and we could suddenly end up with an unprecedented influx of refugees here in Canada. Until it is proven otherwise, they will be told that there are mechanisms in place to deal with this type of situation, but in fact, there are not. That is why the committee focused on the situation in Hong Kong in particular, and that is why we asked the Minister of Immigration to appear yesterday.

There are things to do and things we need to consider. We could talk ad nauseam about human rights violations by the People's Republic of China, especially against religious minorities. We have heard some horrendous stories about entire communities being sent to concentration camps, where sterilization policies are enforced to wipe them out. This is called genocide. Our colleagues on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which includes the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, have recognized this as genocide. I think we need to call a spade a spade.

However, this debate is not about the safety of people in the People's Republic of China. We are discussing how the People's Republic of China poses a threat to people in this country, to Quebeckers. This is what we need to look at.

Is this reflection premature? Are we putting the cart before the horse, since we have a committee actively looking into this issue? I have my own opinion on the matter, and I think I have already expressed it. I do think that this is a little premature.

Once again, the Conservatives are forcing us to take a stance. Whether or not this is premature is not at issue in this debate because, like it or not, we are being forced to take a stance. Let us do just that.

Here is the motion moved by our friends in the Conservative Party:

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.

Before I dive into the details, I just want to say that every time our Conservative friends move a motion like this one, I cannot help but think they might be trying to make the government look bad. Maybe I am just being a little paranoid because we know there are a lot of conspiracy theorists around these days, or maybe I am making assumptions about the Conservative Party's true intentions, but it seems to me that 30 days is both an extremely tight deadline and an extremely long period of time.

Take the 5G network as an example. I assume that the Canadian government has already begun thinking about this issue to some degree and that it is not surprised today to be asked what it has decided with regard to 5G. I also assume the government is not surprised that we are asking whether it has reflected on the issue of the undue influence of the People's Republic of China within Canada. Quite honestly, between my colleagues, myself and the fence post, if the government has been caught with its pants down today, we have a big problem. If the government has not yet started thinking about these fundamental issues, we are in trouble.

A 30-day deadline may seem really tight, but it may also seem quite long if we assume that the government has already done its homework on these matters. If it has done its homework, we can then assume that it should be in a position to deliver. When the government says the Conservatives are being unreasonable by allowing only 30 days, I have to wonder whether this means that the Liberals are not entirely ready to deal with these matters, and if that is the case, that really worries me. If the deadline is far too tight and it really puts the government in a tough spot, it is because it is incapable of delivering.

I would now like to take a moment to look at the 5G network. I mentioned conspiracy theorists earlier. I do not want to use that term in a pejorative or derogatory way, but some of our constituents sincerely believe that the 5G network poses a threat to their fundamental rights and their privacy. When we consider Huawei's attitude around the world, their concerns are understandable.

We know that Huawei was caught with the African Union and accused of passing on information. China has passed a national intelligence law that requires all companies to collaborate on the People's Republic of China's national security. Chinese authorities swear by all that is holy that this law does not have extraterritorial reach. However, we have our doubts because we now know that the new national security law for Hong Kong does apply extraterritorially. Does a Chinese company have a responsibility to contribute to Chinese national security in its foreign operations? In light of what happened with the African Union, the answer is yes.

On that issue, the minister talked about national security and intelligence services. The Five Eyes, of which Canada is a member, also includes the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. These five countries co-operate on their intelligence activities. The other four countries have already decided that Huawei is out because it is too dangerous. Again, however, it seems that Canada is reluctant to upset Beijing.

Most of the experts who have appeared before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations so far have said that ingratiation and appeasement have had no effect on a political regime of this nature because the only thing it understands is forcefulness, in other words, a puffed-out chest and an assertive tone. That is what the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand did. Canada is lagging behind this group of allies since its government still does not know what it is doing and is keeping Canadian businesses in uncertainty by failing to tell them whether or not it will choose Huawei technology.

The 30 days allotted in the motion is a very reasonable timeline for the government to make a decision, and I think the time has come for a decision. Canadians and Quebeckers have serious concerns and expect the government to make that decision.

I now want to talk about the other point, which is the undue influence of Chinese authorities on Canadian soil.

Based on all of the evidence we have heard, we know beyond any reasonable doubt that the People's Republic of China is using agents on Canadian soil to intimidate people who are protesting the Beijing regime and intimidate people of Chinese origin who are here in Canada.

Earlier, one of our Conservative colleagues asked the minister a question about the action taken in other states and about what is happening in Canada. Has the Canadian government been looking into this issue and does it plan to propose a policy? Will the Canadian government continue to tolerate the undue influence of foreign states, in particular the People's Republic of China, on its soil? Is it prepared to do something, or does it need a push from the Conservative Party's motion and its 30-day deadline?

This is why I asked the minister whether he supported our Conservative colleagues' motion, because everything the minister said was quite relevant. However, we still do not know whether the Liberals will support the motion or what justification they will use if they choose to vote against it. No matter what the government decides, we need to know whether it is prepared to act on these two issues. Either way, we need to know.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the Five Eyes and the interaction with the Canadian federal government.

Does the member think that the government should take action quicker than within 30 days? The member talked back and forth about whether it is too soon or too late. If he could wave a magic wand, does he think the government should take immediate action?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world, I would imagine that the government would already be prepared and in a position to speak to its policy on these two issues. In an ideal world, it would be unthinkable that the government would not be prepared and that it would not be ready to respond to these issues.

That is why I am waiting to hear from the minister whether or not the government will support the motion. If the government decides to vote against the motion because 30 days is not long enough—which could be the case if it were not ready—there is cause for concern.

There really is nothing new about the debate surrounding Huawei or the undue influence of the People's Republic of China in Canada. Has the government studied these issues? If it has, it should be ready. If not, that is worrisome.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoyed it. I think that he addressed quite a few issues and I would like to respond to two of them.

First, have we started thinking about it? Obviously, we have. I think that, as parliamentarians, we need to trust Canada's agencies, which have been working on these issues for a long time. The phenomena that members have spoken about are nothing new, and our agencies are aware of them. Great national security professionals have been working on these issues for a long time.

The real question is whether it is in the best interest of Canada and its national security to impose an arbitrary deadline, as does today's motion, which was moved by a party that has suddenly decided that such a deadline takes precedence over national security. I think that if we were to ask Canadians this question, their answer would be clear: National security is far more important than a motion moved by an opposition party to impose an arbitrary deadline that does not take into account our intelligence services, discussions with our allies or discussions with those who supply or use this equipment.

I would therefore like to ask my colleague whether it would not be wiser to suggest that this action be taken as soon as possible. Yes, the government has considered these issues, but I do not think that an arbitrary deadline is the answer to matters of national security.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in our national security agencies. The problem is that the pandemic makes it possible to do a lot of things in the name of national security. That is why we need oversight mechanisms in a democracy, including parliamentary oversight.

Parliament, however, was suspended for months, then prorogued, so it was unable to perform its oversight function. Moreover, the government set up a parliamentary committee on public and national security, of which I became a member after undergoing a security investigation to get the necessary security clearance. However, the committee has not met since October 21, 2019.

To get back to the issue of oversight, it is important to find out exactly what is happening in our national security agencies. I find that the concept of national security is a catch-all that can be used to justify pretty much anything. That is not how things work in a democracy.

If the government is serious about national security and trusting our agencies, it needs to restore the bodies tasked with ensuring civil and parliamentary oversight of our national security agencies.

I would like to conclude—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly the Chinese government's attack on Hong Kong is very concerning. The attack on minority groups such as the Uighurs is very concerning.

In Canada, though, one of the things that concerns me is that our Parliament has not spoken up about or dealt with the proliferation of illegal fentanyl labs, which have caused such horrific death and destruction in community after community across this country.

Thanks to international pressure in May 2019, China finally made fentanyl illegal, but we know that there are hundreds of labs across the country in China. They are using the various ingredients, hiding through elaborate corporate networks and moving these products through the dark web. They are having a disastrous impact on the lives and health of Canadians.

Why is it that this Parliament has not spoken up on the crisis of the illegal Chinese fentanyl labs? Why are we not working with our allies to shut this down and stop the horrific opioid epidemic, which is causing so much heartache in our communities?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.

I think that our colleague is touching on a very interesting point. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Conservatives made choices in their motion. They chose to focus on two specific issues. I mentioned that we could have discussed any number of other issues, but that the Conservative motion limits us to these two.

To answer the minister, our Conservative colleagues told us that they were open to amendments. Since the start of this minority parliament, I have had the unfortunate impression that the government 's default position is to vote against opposition motions simply because they come from the opposition.

If the government is serious about a reasonable time frame such as “as soon as possible,” let it table an amendment. Our colleagues are open to amendments. That way, we could come to a consensus on the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion has a 30-day deadline. That is reasonable, because, a year ago, the government announced that it would be submitting a new policy on China. In my view, any new policy on China should include a decision concerning Huawei and a plan to settle the matter of Chinese operations on Canadian soil.

What does the hon. member think?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that question in my speech.

Let us summarize what I said in greater detail. Is the 30-day deadline reasonable? The government says that we should not pick dates out of a hat, and that we should act “as soon as possible.” I agree with my colleague that “as soon as possible” is not in six months or a year and a half. The government made announcements, and we expect it to make decisions. The other Five Eyes allies expect Canada to stand with them based on shared information about Huawei. Many Chinese Canadians expect Canada to take domestic action.

In other words, let us not get overly excited about the 30-day deadline. If we can agree on something else, let us agree and stop this partisan game in which we look daggers at each other and vote against the opposition's motions and for the government's motions, or vice versa. The minister has an opinion about the deadline and he shared it. Let us propose an amendment and, if the Conservative Party agrees, we will all be in agreement and can present a common front in dealing with our friends in the People's Republic of China.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

I really appreciated my colleague's entire speech because, as parliamentarians, we cannot specialize in every field.

That being said, I clearly understand that there is a time issue, that we have our heads in the sand and that we are lagging behind other countries.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. He spoke of reasons why the government does not want to offend Beijing. Can he elaborate? Why does the government refuse to act for fear of offending Beijing?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning of my speech that, in a way, western governments had created a monster. In the early 1990s, the People's Republic of China was an economic Eldorado because of its low manufacturing costs. Everyone wanted to do business in the People's Republic of China.

Many companies ran into trouble because the regulatory framework is so dreadful and ended up losing everything, but we created a monster, and now the monster wants to devour us. Some governments, including the Government of Canada, it appears, have not yet realized that the monster wants to devour us, so they try to placate it. They think that if we are nice to the monster the monster may be nice to us but, as we have seen, that does not work.

The experts who appeared before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations told us again and again: We need to get tough. I think that today we have the opportunity to get tough with the People's Republic of China.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today in the opposition day motion presented by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

Without accepting everything in the preamble, the issues are set out pretty clearly. The motion is calling on the House to do two things: make a decision on Huawei's involvement in Canada's 5G network within 30 days, and 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. It also calls for it to be tabled in the House within 30 days. Aside from the timing, which is fairly precise for an opposition day motion, I want to say that these are two issues that have been outstanding in this country for quite some time, and I think the time has come to bring them to a head.

At our Canada-China committee, we have heard lots of evidence of intimidation of Canadians by agents of the Chinese government in one form or another. Concerns have been raised about Canada's lack of a proper response. We have also heard of the confusion that has ensued as a result of people being approached, intimidated and sometimes threatened, whether obviously or subtly, and when they go to report this matter to the authorities they do not get a positive response. We had direct evidence from individuals passing on this information. They talked to people at CSIS and were told to go to the RCMP. When they talked to people at the RCMP, they were told to go to CSIS. CSIS then told them to go to Global Affairs. Essentially, it is the proverbial runaround.

I know there have been comments made by the Minister of Public Safety about this in the House recently, but there seems to be a lack of a coherent plan as to how to deal with this. Obviously, thought must be given to this. The agencies of government are well aware of this. The government itself is well aware of this. There seems to be something missing here with respect to the kind of response Canadians would expect on a matter of such great importance and concern to Canadians, particularly Canadians of Chinese descent who are living in Canada. These are citizens of Canada, or in some cases students or international students who are here, or people who are engaged in political activities within Canada who are being intimidated in their home country by agents of a foreign country, in this case China.

It is a problem no matter who it would be. This is not particularly aimed at China. If there is a need for a response by government, it should be a response that applies to any country. We are not looking for an expectation that there is a China-specific rule here. The examples that have been brought forward are related to China in this instance, and should be rules of general application.

For example, it has been said in the Canada-China committee that legislative approaches have been taken by other countries. I know Australia in particular has been singled out in the motion, but that does not need to be the exact model. The clear point is that other countries have taken legislative action. The United States has a particular strong piece of legislation dealing with the rules of the operation of foreign missions in the United States. Action has been taken under those rules against individuals, in particular from China, using that legislation, getting a fairly quick response and showing clearly that this kind of behaviour is not going to be tolerated. We do not see examples like this within Canada. We do not see a clear indication by government that action is being taken where it is needed to ensure this kind of activity cannot happen.

The Canada-China committee was set up nearly a year ago and has been studying this. We have been looking at these questions. We have been hearing from witnesses. We have been getting plenty of information to show there is a need for an effective government response, which is lacking.

Witnesses come to our committee and say they feel that CSIS does not have the enforcement power that it ought to have. They feel that the RCMP, at the local level, are ill informed as to how to deal with this question and do not really have answers for people. People feel abandoned by their government in circumstances where either threats were made against them or there was intimidation toward them and their families who remain in China. That is something we have to do something specifically about. People need to know that their government is prepared to respond. That is what is missing from this picture right now.

We support the notion of seeing the government lay out a plan quickly, so that people can be assured that the government is prepared to respond, in a positive and necessary way, to the kind of intimidation and interference that we are seeing. We are seeing it at other levels as well. We are seeing interference, and potential interference, in universities. We have heard some evidence on that in the Canada-China committee, and there seems to be a growing concern that there is undue influence in that respect. However, whatever involvement there might be in terms of research support, it is something that ought to be transparent and open and not subject to the kind of pressure and concerns we have seen being raised.

As well, the decision being talked about, thought about and clearly studied on what to do with Huawei has to be brought to a head. Clearly, the government has been looking at this, or says it is looking at it, and we would like to know the results of the investigation and the results of the concerns that have been raised. We have seen them very broadly raised internationally. We have seen other governments take action. Other members of the Five Eyes have decided that they are not going to allow Huawei to participate in 5G. That, obviously, has to have some influence on decisions made by Canada.

I think the U.K. decided that it could get around it at one point, but then changed its mind. This is something that weighs heavily in the mix if we are going to continue to have the kind of relationship that we need at the international level and know what is happening in the intelligence world. We need to be as prepared as possible to deal with that, and if the government has a workaround on it, it had better tell us. It is something that the U.K. at least made a decision on, based on having a workaround, but obviously it changed its mind.

There is the recent change that was brought about as a result of decisions by the United States to prevent certain elements of the 5G network from being exported to China, whether for commercial or other reasons. This is perhaps irrelevant in some respect, but not necessarily irrelevant to the decision that Canada has to make. If the Huawei capability is interfered with by this technical matter, then that is a consideration as well.

We also have mounting evidence of the ability of Huawei to act in a monopolistic way, with special support from the Chinese government in terms of investment, capability and providing it with a near monopoly market within China. This allows it to grow exponentially and act in a manner in the rest of the world that is highly competitive, perhaps unfairly. It has been assessed to be unfair to competition with other enterprises, and is in a position of having control over a market that is extremely important, from a strategic and industrial point of view, within Canada. If we become overwhelmed and dominated by the Huawei enterprise system, then we are vulnerable, through its control over the future of communications and technology to a large degree within Canada, to the exclusion of other players and to more robust interaction with different enterprises.

There is research and development that goes with that. Innovation goes with that. Opportunity and alternatives need to be available for companies and enterprises, and for the free movement of ideas and control.

We are now in the virtual world. We are talking in a virtual world. We are dependent, for our parliamentary democracy, on the electronic equipment we are using right now to operate our Parliament. It is also penetrating totally into the industrial world, the commercial world and the transportation world. It is an extremely important strategic element and infrastructure for our future. That is something that we have to take very seriously.

Frankly, we cannot take the kind of chances that are open if we go with Huawei as a major player, and perhaps the only player in a sense, if it is able to meet the competitive price for our upcoming 5G network. We have to take all of those things into consideration and make a decision. The decision starts to lay very heavily against Huawei's participation for all of those reasons.

Other members have pointed this out, but in addition, we have the issue of Chinese government law, which requires economic enterprises to respond to information requirements if the government so decides. They tried to downplay that, but the law is the law, and the potential is there. Whether they would choose to exercise it or not is not necessarily something we can place a bet on.

At this particular point in time, we are seeing a relationship with China that is far less than wholesome. We have two Canadian citizens who have been arbitrarily detained in China for almost two years now as a result of, and in response to, Canada acting in accordance with its legal treaty obligations to the United States on an extradition matter. We are using and following our laws in an open and transparent manner, yet we have a response by China that is cruel, arbitrary and clearly not in keeping with the kind of relationship that Canada should have with any of its international interlocutors.

We have had a very strong trade relationship with China throughout all of this. There is a bond of trust that appears to have been broken quite dramatically as a result of these actions. We heard a response from the Chinese ambassador to Canadians' complaint about human rights and the imposition of a state security law on Hong Kong. This was in contravention of treaty obligations and international obligations. We had been asked, back in 1997, to support the treaty obligations and help make them work.

We now see the Chinese government is not following through on those. There is a loss of faith here that is going to take an awful lot of activity, behaviour and change to try to mend. It is not going to happen soon enough to allow us to trust the use of a Chinese technology that is so vital and important to the future of how our economy will operate, how our communication system will operate and how our country will operate in these circumstances.

The time has come for Canada to make a decision on this. We suspect, as perhaps most Canadians suspect, that the government may have made a decision, but for whatever reason, it is deciding it is not an opportune time to make it known publicly. I think the time has come for us to see that. We do not need to be left in the dark about this issue. It is something that has to be faced. It is holding up investment and progress on the development of the 5G network.

The Huawei decision is affecting the economic activity and investment activity in our country. I know some in the telecom industry have moved forward with other platforms, and I think that is to be expected, but there are other investment decisions that may be very important for getting broadband all across this country as quickly as possible. It has been brought strongly to the forefront as a result of the COVID situation we are dealing with and the obvious need for it. A great divide is occurring between people who have access to broadband and the Internet and people who do not when it comes to access to education, educational materials, working from home and economic activity. This needs to be fixed, and certainty needs to be part of it. It is desirable.

We see in industrial activities, including in automobile factories, the kind of investments that might occur and will occur. However, will they occur in Canada? We are not certain what the platforms are going to be. We see this in the auto industry, which is extremely important for parts of Canada. I know many members of Parliament have concerns about this in their ridings and regions, and it is extremely important to the economy of Canada that we equally participate in innovation in automobile technology, whether with regard to autonomous vehicles or advances in manufacturing techniques. All of that is highly dependent on computers and computing technology, so this type of investment is extremely important.

This has to be brought to a head. It is on the table; it is already there. However, a decision needs to be made, and if there is a very good reason not to make the decision now, the government should come forward and tell us what it knows so far and what is of concern and bring it forward.

I will raise, as a final point, something that we have not heard from anyone. I understand from some of the questioning earlier that some Conservative members of Parliament may not be familiar with what their own government did in making a foreign investment protection agreement with China in 2014. I have not done an analysis of the consequences of that legislation, but I am hoping that the Conservatives, when they speak, will tell us what they think the consequences would be. The government should also tell us what it has determined based on an analysis of that, because there seems to be protections for China that we do not receive. They are not reciprocal and are, in fact, fairly secretive and not transparent, and they may have extremely negative consequences on issues like Huawei. I would like the government to explain that as well. It looks like a deterrent for us to do what we may have to do for our national interests, our national security interests and our national economic interests.

For both of these issues, the issue of dealing with the interference and intimidation and the issue of the activities of China's government in particular, we need a legislative response. We need a direct response about what the government plans to do to deal with this in a comprehensive way. This should be on the table very shortly. I am hoping the government can give us some outline today as to what might be included in that, and will ensure that this happens very quickly so that Canadians can feel safe in their own country from foreign influence, intimidation and threats from representatives of other governments. Both of these things are important, and I will end by saying that we support the motion.