Debates of Nov. 17th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Foreign Policy Toward China

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, the minister stated that if Canadians noticed any type of interference from the Chinese government, they should go to the RCMP and report it immediately and the RCMP would take action. In his speech, the member said that the RCMP was asking to be involved at the committee level in these discussions on how to deal with Chinese interference at the country level and at the local level. This seems rather disjointed in the thought process of how we should tackle this.

Why is the government delaying these types of decisions and not getting together a plan on how we are going to approach China in the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

The focus needs to be changed. The focus needs to be brought to a head. Why they are waiting is something the Liberals have to explain. This is an opportunity for them to do it, which is one reason this motion is quite timely.

We have heard testimony in recent weeks, before the Canada-China committee, that this is a problem. We heard from Amnesty International a couple of months ago, which outlined the difficulty people are having. They are going to one agency and being told to go to another, only to be told to go to the government. This clearly underscores the lack of a cohesive and comprehensive response. The government has to make the response clear to ensure that Canadians who are affected by this have a single point of contact so they know where to go and what they are going to get when they get there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that in all likelihood the NDP will be supporting the motion. My question is related to the time constraints. Does the member have any issues with the time constraints?

He talked about the automobile industry, which is so vitally important. All we have to do is talk to some of my Ontario colleagues and members in all regions to recognize how important it is for certain sectors of our economy and so much more. There are security issues also.

The concern I have is about the timing obligation. Does the NDP have any concerns with respect to that aspect of the motion, which says, “within 30 days”?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are calling on the government to make a decision within 30 days. That is what the motion does. The 30 days, I will acknowledge, is rather arbitrary, but it does convey a sense of urgency.

This has been on the front burner, not the back burner, because it has been top of mind. If we read the newspapers and follow events around the world, governments have been dealing with this issue. Other governments have found a solution and have come to a conclusion. It is time for Canada to do so as well. I suspect the government does have a decision, but for some reason it is holding off on it.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

The motion talks about developing a robust plan, as Australia has done, to combat China's growing foreign operations here in Canada and the intimidation of Canadians living in Canada.

Last year, La Presse reported that groups right here in Canada had prevented LGBTQ2 activists from Hong Kong from participating in Montreal's pride parade. There was intimidation on social media. This is a very serious and important issue.

Does my colleague consider that unacceptable? What can we do to prevent that kind of intimidation on social networks?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is very important because we have seen this not only in suggestions of participation in public events, but in demonstrations that have taken place in Canada by pro-democracy advocates. They have been attacked by large groups of counterprotesters, apparently at the behest of the Chinese government or Chinese agents. Intimidation, cyber-intimidation and so on go with that.

We need the government to make it very clear that this kind of interference is unacceptable. We also need it to provide legal mechanisms and enforcement. It should participate. Instead of standing by and watching things happen, it should actually get engaged and do something about it, identifying people who are breaking the law and, if necessary, making laws that need to be made to ensure that this kind of intimidation does not go on.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a breath of fresh air to hear someone in this place reference the Canada-China foreign investment protection agreement, which I have reviewed. I do not think the motion before us is allowable under the terms of the Canada-China FIPA. Acting on this motion is not allowable under its terms.

Under Stephen Harper, with a vote that did not happen in Parliament but solely in cabinet, we gave away the store. In the words of Professor Gus Van Harten, who wrote a book on it, we were Sold Down the Yangtze. I do not know if we can even begin to imagine the secretive and sticky-tape restrictions on us as a country in saying that we would not allow Huawei to do anything that we would not allow a Canadian corporation to do.

I thank my colleague for raising this, and I encourage all members in this place to familiarize themselves with how we have already surrendered our sovereignty to the People's Republic of China, by way of Stephen Harper's signature.

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

Madam Speaker, if the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is right, and I am afraid she may well be, that this is probably one of the most outrageous actions by any government in Canada with respect to its sovereignty, it begs one question: What does the government have to say about it? Many of its representatives were here when that happened. I was here when it happened. We objected very strongly to the secrecy, to the commitment to secrecy, to the giveaway of natural resources implicit in it and to everything else.

There is a particular consequence with respect to Huawei. We may not be able to act in our national interests without significant repercussions, and that would be a terrible travesty.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for asking really tough questions of the government.

The motion today comes from the Conservatives. As the previous questioner said, it was the Conservatives, in 2014, under the Stephen Harper government, who made the FIPA trade deal with China against the will of many indigenous communities, including the Nuu-chah-nulth in my riding. They were concerned about their rights, the environment and security. All of this was brought forward.

Does my colleague believe that because of this agreement, Canada could potentially be facing a very expensive lawsuit? The government could choose to allow involvement in 5G networks, including Huawei's, and there are security risks associated with that. If my colleague could answer that, it would be fabulous.

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

Madam Speaker, that is an extremely important question. I recollect some of the debate and discussion going on at the time, as well as the concerns that were raised and ignored by the then government.

I do not know the exact answer to this question because it is complex. I think we would like to hear some answers today from the Conservatives about what they think they did to the country's interests with the passage of that legislation. We also want to know what kind of analysis the government has of the current circumstances.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to speak today in support of this motion. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

I want to thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for bringing forward this important motion calling on the government for real action. The need for the motion is clear. The Liberal government has not taken the threats from the Chinese government to Canada and to Canadians seriously and so far, has failed to act decisively and forcefully on this urgent public safety issue.

Canadians have been arbitrarily detained in China. Officials from the Communist Party of China and their government harass, bully and intimidate Canadian citizens here on Canadian soil and around the world. Canadian citizens living abroad, especially in Hong Kong, have faced an erosion of civil liberties and increasing control and threats from China.

When the world needed information and access from the Chinese government at the start of the pandemic in order to protect our own citizens, China's regime presented obfuscation and delays. Every day, the Canadian government, businesses and civilian networks face intellectual property theft and data breaches by China. Enough is enough. It is long past time for Canada to take the threat from the Chinese government seriously and for the Canadian government to take action to protect our own citizens and our national interest.

Despite all the evidence and warnings, and months, even years, that have passed, the Liberal government has still not made a decision to ban Huawei from involvement in Canada's 5G infrastructure. This motion calls on the government to make a decision on Huawei within 30 days. Because of the government's repeated delays, it seems there is no other choice left for us but to try to force the government to take it seriously through this motion.

If Huawei were permitted to build Canada's 5G infrastructure, it would give the Chinese government sweeping backdoor access to confidential information from Canadians, from Canadian businesses and even to secret government information. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Alarmingly, the government's delay in making a decision puts Canada at odds with the rest of the countries in our Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance with the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K., each of which has now either banned or restricted the use of Huawei 5G equipment. The Canadian government's passivity and delay is mind-boggling. Presumably, it accesses the same intelligence as our free and democratic allies around the world and every one of them have come to the same conclusion that Huawei is not to be trusted. Therefore, the question is: Why has the Canadian government not done so? What is holding the Liberals back from making a decision? Protecting Canadian citizens at home and abroad should be the paramount responsibility of the Canadian government, its number one priority.

Others in the Five Eyes community caution that if Canada does not ban Huawei technology, it will put Canada's intelligence sharing and protection with our allies in jeopardy. It is galling that the government would risk relationships with our closest allies and Canada's own security and sovereignty in order to placate the Chinese government, but that is why we are debating this crucial motion today.

Canadian intelligence agencies are taking the threat from the Chinese government seriously. Just last week, a Globe and Mail report showed that CSIS has confirmed that Chinese state security officials are operating on Canadian soil, targeting members of Canada's Chinese community in an attempt to suppress criticisms of the Communist government and its leader.

One of those campaigns, Operation Fox Hunt, is directed by Beijing's ministry of public security itself and has been going on for years, since 2014. A CSIS spokesperson said, “When individuals in Canada are subjected to such harassment, manipulation or intimidation by foreign states seeking to gather support for or mute criticism of their policies, these activities constitute a threat to Canada’s sovereignty and to the safety of Canadians.”

Therefore, the Liberals must do more than share words of concern. That is why this motion also calls for Canada to develop a comprehensive plan, similar to that of Australia, to combat China's growing foreign operations here in Canada, its increasing intimidation of Canadians here and around the world, and to table it within 30 days.

The proof is there. The intelligence is clear. Canadians want and need action from the government in order to protect citizens, to keep them safe and protect our values. If the government already has a plan, then it owes it to Canadians to show how it is taking this seriously. It should act quickly to assure our political, economic and strategic free and democratic allies around the world of the same. The threat posed to Canada from China is wide-ranging and Canadians are right to be concerned.

At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, my Conservative colleagues and I already moved a motion that was adopted. It called for the committee to examine the influence of hostile foreign entities in Canada and the abuse of Canadians by foreign national regimes in Canada and abroad, along with cases and evidence of hostile and distressed acquisition of Canadian assets by state-owned enterprises, corrupt foreign regimes or organized crime organizations.

Because we cannot seem to get concrete answers from Liberal ministers, the motion says that the committee will hear from the RCMP and CSIS on the measures taken to prevent security violations of Canadians of national economic interests, including theft or acquisition of sensitive technologies and current measures and potential future actions to prevent state-backed and corporate espionage, intellectual property and trade secret theft.

The reality is that China is advancing a plan of economic imperialism throughout vulnerable developing countries, but also in Canada through increasing ownership of resources and economic and intellectual property interference. It is not only the Chinese government guilty of campaigns of economic and political interference in Canada.

The Communist government of China plays by an entirely different set of rules. Today's motion would require the Canadian government to act urgently and to present its plan to combat China's growing foreign operations. China's communist regime does not respect the rule of law and the independence of the judicial process.

The Chinese government's ambassador to Canada has gone so far as to threaten Canadian citizens living in Hong Kong. He said that if Canada grants asylum to pro-democracy activists from Hong Kong it would jeopardize the “health and safety” of the 300,000 Canadians who live there. That is a clear threat. The ambassador must retract his remarks and issue a public apology, because a threat to Canadians anywhere is a threat to Canadians everywhere. This House passed a unanimous motion condemning the ambassador's remarks, but the Liberals equivocate and delay in response and the ambassador continues to double down.

With enough evidence of illegal Chinese government operations on Canadian soil, and Chinese Canadians and Chinese immigrants to Canada being threatened by Beijing, they and their families members, both in Canada and in China, being threatened with violence and intimidation, these Liberals must go beyond words.

It is a clear violation of Canadian sovereignty and a clear threat to the public safety of Canadians. It is the Government of Canada's duty to do everything in its power to protect its citizens, and that duty to protect extends to Canadians living overseas.

One concrete action is to finally actually make a decision on Huawei and leave no room for doubt or question; to ban it from having anything to do with Canada's 5G infrastructure. The government must put the safety of Canadian citizens first and must put our allies ahead of an aggressive and hostile foreign government.

I encourage all members to support the Conservative motion today and to do what we were elected fundamentally to do, which is to put the lives, the interests, the liberty, the rights and the safety of Canadians first and foremost beyond all else.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to something raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands earlier, and ask the member if her party did an analysis of FIPA and its potential impact on the banning of Huawei from our 5G network, and if so, if, in her opinion, whether it proves to be a constraint in terms of our actions on our 5G network?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is not a constraint on our action or on the ability for the Liberal government to take action and to make a decision on banning Huawei from our 5G infrastructure.

What deeply concerns me is our opposition colleagues continuing to focus on the past or unfortunately doing as they often do, which is blaming Stephen Harper instead of talking about the pressing, urgent public safety threat and threats to national security, to the public safety of all Canadians, to the rights, lives and liberty of Canadians here at home and around the world, including all the threats posed by China to our businesses, security networks and economy.

That is what opposition members should actually be focused on. We should be united in calling on the Liberal government to finally make a decision that our free and democratic allies around the world have done, in some cases two years ago already, and allow there to be no mistake and no questions about the Government of Canada's position on China.

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

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of misinformation about the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. This is an agreement that the Government of Canada struck with dozens of countries. It is an agreement that other OECD countries have struck with dozens of countries. What the FIPA says is that a foreign firm can sue Ottawa only if they receive different treatment compared to that of a Canadian-owned counterpart.

For example, if Nokia or Ericsson were subject to article 7 of China's national intelligence law, which requires Huawei to support, assist and co-operate with China's intelligence activities, the Government of Canada would arguably treat it in exactly the same way. Therefore, Huawei is not being singled out for special treatment here. If any other company that provides this kind of 5G telecommunications networking equipment was subject to article 7 of China's national intelligence law, it too would be subject to the same restrictions that four of the Five Eyes have placed on Huawei.

This motion that we have presented in the House, and the position of the Conservative Party that the government should ban Huawei, is entirely consistent with the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement and does not single out Huawei for special treatment any more than it would any other company, regardless of the nationality of its ownership.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my experienced, knowledgeable and principled colleague for clarifying for all members, to a comprehensive and detailed degree, the claims that we are hearing from other opposition members in the House and for refocusing everyone's attention on the point of this motion, and in particular why Conservatives are calling for action and a deadline of 30 days.

It has been over a year since the government said it would be introducing a new framework on China. It said that plan would be publicly introduced this fall by December 21 of this year. Of course, no new framework on China can be complete without a decision on Huawei and a comprehensive plan to counter China's foreign influence operations on Canadian soil.

Once again, I would urge all members of the House to support this Conservative motion and hold this Liberal government to account.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak today to such an incredibly important topic.

Today's motion is so important because when it comes to Canada's approach to China, we, like many other western democracies, have simply gotten it wrong. Now, 50 years after establishing diplomatic relations with China, we must collectively, soberly and urgently rethink our approach to the People's Republic of China.

That is why today's motion is so critically important. It represents a long overdue first step to changing that approach. The motion calls for the government, within 30 days, to make a decision on Canada's use of Huawei in our 5G network and to develop a robust plan to combat China's growing foreign operations in Canada and its increasing intimidation of Canadians who live here.

Let me be clear, before we get too far, that this is not about Chinese citizens, it is not about the people living in China; it is about the People's Republic of China, the Communist Party of China.

How did we get our approach to China so very wrong? Overall, we collectively, as western nations, Canada included, made the assumption that China would eventually liberalize, uphold the rules of international order and co-operate with the democratic world because it saw the benefits of capitalist economics. However, we were wrong.

Instead, China has emerged as one of the most powerful, authoritarian states in history and a major challenger to the liberal world order. Oppression in China is intensifying. It has imposed drastic and far-reaching national security law in Hong Kong. It continues to exploit people in Tibet. It has re-education camps where Uighurs are interned. Those are just a few of various, numerous examples of oppression.

Probably the most disconcerting thing is that these increasingly oppressive acts, once hidden, are now much more blatant and out in the open. The CCP, the Chinese Communist Party's ambitions are not confined within China's borders. They represent an integrated approach across the world, employing social, economic and military means to achieve its ambitions.

That is why today's motion is so important. Our response in Canada must be an integrated and comprehensive approach that recognizes that the threats are not only on foreign soil but they actually happen right here.

Once upon a time Canadians believed that foreign policy was something we did on distant shores. We believed that because we were on this side of the Atlantic, protected and had not really seen drastic or dramatic wars on our shores, foreign policy was something that happened somewhere else, that we were not threatened here at home.

However, that must fundamentally change. The CCP looks to legitimize authoritarianism and seeks greater acceptance of that authoritarianism. It is using means to achieve that end by undermining and eroding democracy right here at home. Many of our democracies, as a result, are hanging in the balance.

Exactly what means is it using? We know about cyber espionage, where it is using social media to influence and to change the minds of our citizens. The People's Liberation Army is hacking and we see intellectual property theft from everything from private corporations to the National Research Council.

We are now aware of Operation Fox Hunt, which is just a simplistic term for saying that Canadians of Chinese background and others are being intimidated and threatened by Chinese agents in Canada. We know of the united front work department, which brags in its training videos about how it has been able to influence elections and find pro-Beijing candidates who take positions in our democracies.

We also know that the Chinese government keeps a list of those people in other countries whom it is able to influence and have power over. We should know whether CEOs of companies or, ourselves, elected officials, and what exactly the Chinese government is thinking where we are in terms of our favourability and susceptibility to Chinese influence.

It is also using powerful economic means by expanding its economic imperialism, or what we call “debt-trap diplomacy”, through the one belt and road initiative, where it makes major strategic investments in critical infrastructure like ports, roads, airports and oil and gas industry assets. Then, when countries cannot pay, it takes possession of those assets. Strategic assets allow it to bolster its economy, hold the economies of those countries hostage and ensure it can get goods, people and potentially military assets anywhere in the world.

It is also using Chinese companies in nations around the world, of which one is the centre of discussion today, Huawei. There is a national intelligence law that states that those companies are mandated to provide intelligence and information to the Chinese government and act in its best interest even when they are on Canadian soil even if that means going around Canadian law to do it. That is frightening and it is a threat not only to our national security but to the rule of law, to democracy and to our social and economic security.

Militarily, the Chinese government is expanding rapidly. We have seen one of its largest operations, where it partnered with Russia, in recent memory, with over 300,000 troops and 36,000 tanks. It has now considered itself a near Arctic state, putting in place a Chinese Arctic policy and targeting our Arctic in Canada. We know that there are Chinese submarines and that it has ambitions for the Northwest Passage, which will be a game changer in the next century. It will allow goods to get around the world by water much more quickly.

Economically, socially and politically we are vulnerable right at home and the Chinese government is working non-stop to place us under threat.

Therefore, what do we do about it? We need to urgently and absolutely rethink our approach.

The good news is we are not alone. Many western democracies around the world are recognizing that it is a greater threat and we need to do something urgently. That is why this plan today is so important.

First, we need a decision on Huawei and it must be banned. Second, and more important, we need a plan to get a plan. We need to be clear-eyed about Chinese ambitions. We need to get more intelligence on just how vulnerable we are. We need to have one integrated comprehensive plan to address these threats. Perhaps we even need a cabinet level position to do that.

The government is saying that it cannot give us a plan, that to get a plan in 30 days is unreasonable. This is an existential threat. We are running out of time. We must do something to protect the citizens on our soil and the values we hold dear at home and abroad to protect the international world order, our democracy, our security and our future.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the vulnerability we had at home, and I appreciate that. We know Canadians are living in fear here because of the Chinese government's effort to silence dissenting voices in Canada and around the world. We know Canadians are victims of cyberbullying, threats of sexual violence, threats of harm to their family members living in China, racist insults, intimidation and harassment for speaking out against human rights abuses and their advocacy for democracy in China. We see this in Hong Kong right now.

The member talked about rethinking our approach and urgently taking action. What would the member like to see the government do to actively protect Canadians who are being intimidated and harassed by foreign agents in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my hon. colleague for some of the critical work he has done in this area. He understands the sense of urgency, what we are collectively facing and why we need to take urgent action.

We need a comprehensive and integrated plan. The Chinese government has a war on multiple fronts to expand its ambitions. We, unfortunately, are divided here at home, because we have different functional stovepipes that prevent us from looking at this problem from a comprehensive and integrated approach. The first thing we need to do is to look at all the levers simultaneously and come up with a plan that will address it.

People in my riding are afraid to talk to me because of the threats that are coming from the People's Republic of China. It is my responsibility, all our responsibility, to do everything we can to protect them from that.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's contribution today has been valuable. Obviously, our values and our democracy are extremely important to my constituents, so I want to side with her in speaking for her constituents.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he took very seriously some of these troubling reports of intimidation of Canadian citizens by those operatives on behalf of communist China and that the Minister of Public Safety was seized with the issue as well as various agencies of government. However, the special committee with respect to Canada-China relations, on which I am a member, heard that when people made phone calls to their local police, whether it be RCMP or another authority, they were often told that it was not their job. CSIS has said, on background, that there is no one organizing this work.

The government is saying one thing and the government agencies, which are responsible for protecting our citizens, are doing something separate. What does the member believe needs to happen?

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

Madam Speaker, we learned some incredible things when we worked together on the China committee, which is why the special committee on China is so incredibly important.

As parliamentarians, we have now been given that information and the government is lagging. It is long overdue and perpetuating a delegate-and-disappear approach: “Oh, no, that's not me, that's foreign affairs; or that's not me, that's public safety; or that's not me, that's the minister of industry and economic development.”

That is why we urgently need a plan and we need that plan to be comprehensive and integrated. We need to look at this problem from all aspects soberly, urgently and do something immediately.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond, and it is difficult in debate, but the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills put forward a “clarification” of the Canada-China FIPA that does not fit the facts unfortunately. No other foreign investment protection agreements between Canada and other nations include a six-month, secret phase of diplomatic arm-twisting, or sitting on us until we say “uncle”, which is another way of looking at it. We do not have any other agreements that are absent any trade benefits, but are solely investment implementation and promotion sections without benefit for Canadian companies. Nor do we have anything like the Canada-China investment and promotion agreement with respect to the level of secrecy throughout the process.

Does it trouble my hon. colleague that the Conservative motion includes reference to Australia, which is able to take the steps it has taken because it does not have an investment treaty with the People's Republic of China?

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

Madam Speaker, no, it does not trouble me because, regardless of where we were in the past, this is where we are today. This is what we know today and we now have an urgent need to do something.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley West.

I also want to thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for bringing forward the motion because I think it is an important debate and an important motion.

I want to start by making a comment on the member's preamble to the action aspects of his motion, which I agree with and will get to in a moment. In point (i) of the motion, it states 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....

I believe that statement, sadly, is increasingly true, but it was not always that way and I do not believe it has to remain that way. The motion is, in effect, calling out the Chinese leadership. Let us get back to normalizing our relationship and work together like we have done in the past.

I say it was not always that way and I will tell colleagues why. It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the former prime minister, who went to China in 1973 and worked to open up a relationship with China and then make that relationship important for both countries.

We have had some considerable background in China. It could be called a “leg-up”. In the country, when then prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau went there, Dr. Norman Bethune, a Canadian, was seen as a Canadian hero among the Chinese population for saving people's lives. Canada, because of Dr. Bethune, had a place in the Chinese culture and the Chinese mind.

An agency that I was involved with in the farm movement, the Canadian Wheat Board, was the first international agency that went to China to open up trade and did it on credit. The Conservatives, I know, during the former Harper government, destroyed the Canadian Wheat Board as a farm marketing board. It has now been bought out by Saudi interests, but that is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that we had an in with China, where that marketing agency provided credit so that China could feed its people. Eventually those loans were paid back.

Let us not forget the somewhat positive history we have had before this time, despite our relationship being considerably negative today.

I have been to China a number of times. In fact, I also hosted a former ambassador in Prince Edward Island and later hosted a group of Chinese legislators in P.E.I. Out of those meetings, and through some of Prince Edward Island's educational institutions, we were able to build a close working relationship with educational institutions in China. That relationship goes on to this day and is beneficial to citizens in both countries.

I say that because it was not always that way. We need to try to get back to a better relationship of trust. Certainly the arrest of the two Michaels, Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor, and what is happening in Hong Kong gives us plenty of reasons to be concerned and to lose trust in the Chinese leadership. I say to the Chinese leadership that it is at the moment certainly going in the wrong direction.

Before I get to the key recommendations of the motion, I want to give the background of where the government is at on national security, because we kind of overlook that from time to time.

The government's priority remains to protect Canada and Canadians against activities that undermine democratic values, economic interests, sovereignty and overall national security. The government is aware that certain foreign states may conduct themselves in Canada in a manner that is inconsistent with our values.

This threat is not new and not limited to any one country. Governments worldwide have been engaged in efforts to mould public opinion and government policies in other countries to advance their own interests. When this is done in a transparent, peaceful manner within the law, it is called diplomacy or treaty negotiations. When it is covert or clandestine, employs threats or intimidation or consists of lies and disinformation aimed at misleading people, destabilizing the economy or society, or manipulating the democratic process, a red line gets crossed.

It could be the old-fashioned way, with certain intelligence services collecting or stealing political, economic, commercial or military information, but increasingly, the interference is higher tech. Social media has been used to build anxiety, and even hysteria, around sensitive issues. Fake news masquerades as legitimate information.

Several recent reports have highlighted the threat of foreign interference in Canada. For example, a 2019 CSIS public report released on May 20, 2020, states that espionage and foreign-influenced activities “are almost always conducted to further the interests of a foreign state, using both state and non-state entities.” Foreign powers have also attempted to covertly monitor and intimidate Canadian communities to fulfill their own strategic objectives.

Further, the annual report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians outlined foreign interference activities by a handful of states, like China and Russia, including the targeting of Canadian institutions by threat actors. The Government of Canada's security and intelligence community is combatting these threats within their respective mandates.

As an aside, I was at meetings with a number of governors of states in the United States some time ago. It actually shocked me what the governor of West Virginia had to say. They were talking about attempts to hack into their security systems. The governor indicated that in the previous year, either 2016 or 2017, in the state of West Virginia, they had 82 million attempted hacks.

There are whole departments in some governments and that is all they do. They try to hack into intelligence systems or steal secrets from other countries. That tells us how serious the problem is with that one example. Canada too has to be prepared for that kind of intervention into its system.

From a law enforcement perspective, foreign interference activities can be investigated when criminal or illegal activity is involved. The RCMP, for instance, has a broad, multi-faceted mandate that allows it to investigate and prevent foreign intelligence, drawing on various legislation.

As part of its mandate, CSIS provides the Government of Canada with timely and relevant intelligence on these threats for actions as appropriate. The Communications Security Establishment works to monitor the cybersecurity environment and to use that understanding to identify, address and share knowledge about systematic threats, risks and vulnerabilities.

A key point of the motion is “make a decision on Huawei's involvement in Canada's 5G network within 30 days of the adoption of this motion”. I am not sticky on the 30 days. There may be another option there. However, I can say the fact is this: Australia, the United States and the U.K. have all set restrictions on access to their 5G networks, not allowing equipment into national development.

We have a long history with these Five Eyes partners. We have to stand with them to protect our interests in common with each other, and that means we cannot allow a foreign interest into our security and intelligence system.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate this member's contribution to the argument today. He has a long history, not just in this place but also in serving to protect the public interest.

One area that concerns me is that I believe, right out, that the government should say “no way” to Huawei, and follow with our Five Eyes partners. By simply not making the decision, we have billions of dollars of potential investment to upgrade Canadians' access to 5G technology and the government has not done anything.

Does the member believe that the government needs to be clear on this question, and the sooner the better, to allow these investments to be made?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, Madam Speaker, I do believe the government needs to be clear on this issue. What I tried to point out in my remarks is that, yes, we trade around the world but our most important relationship is with our Five Eyes partners. That is where we develop our allies, develop our trust and develop our confidence.

The government, in my view, has to be very clear about where it is at on this particular issue. I do not believe Huawei should have a place within our system, because our experience in the last few years has shown that it cannot be trusted, and that is critical. Yes, the government needs to make a decision.