Debates of Nov. 17th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Foreign Policy Toward China

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

It is hard to talk about China without talking about human rights violations, and it is hard to talk about human rights violations without talking about Uighurs in China. On October 21, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development asked the government to recognize that Uighurs are victims of genocide. We know that there are concentration camps and mass sterilizations. What we have been hearing is horrifying. Bob Rae, Canada's representative to the United Nations, said that some actions point to genocide against Uighurs.

Does my hon. colleague also think Uighurs in China are victims of genocide?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I read closely the remarks from Canada's Ambassador to the UN, Mr. Rae, and he made the point very clearly that this could be considered a genocide. I also listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs as he has spoken out on this issue.

I believe that Canada as a country has certainly talked about human rights around the world time and time again. I have full confidence that, through the course of time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister will make their comments very clear on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard a fair amount of debate about the potential impact of the foreign investment agreement on the decision of whether to ban Huawei from our 5G network. Does the hon. member feel that the agreement puts us at risk of an expensive lawsuit if we were to ban Huawei from our 5G network?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, Madam Speaker, I do not. I think we are dealing with two separate issues here. One is the whole issue of trade in goods and services, and the other is how we decide to move forward as a country in terms of our technology approach to 5G.

I have made it very clear in my remarks that I believe we should be in concert with our Five Eyes partners as we go forward with the 5G network in this country. That is the only way to protect ourselves in terms of national security and to continue to have the strong allies that we have in our Five Eyes partners.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak with respect on this very important motion, which highlights concerns Canadians are having. I want to thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for raising this issue in the House. It is an issue that has occupied the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, and this motion will draw some attention in the Canadian imagination to it.

I also want to thank the member for Malpeque, not only for sharing his time, but also for calming down the discourse on this topic a little, saying that there is very little dissension or disagreement in this House about our concerns. We share the concerns that people have about their individual security and about the activities of China in the international world.

We share concerns about arbitrarily detained Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. We share those concerns and are eager to work with opposition members to find a way to assert Canada's important issues with respect to foreign policy everywhere, particularly with respect to the bilateral issue when it comes to China.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and China. Indeed, the world has changed significantly in these 50 years. This milestone allows us to look back on 50 years of history, and even longer than 50 years, but also to look ahead. We can look at, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, how we can do a restart. We can stop, look at where we are and recognize that we need to ensure we do not continue on in ways that could cause more difficulty for Canadians.

I am very glad that the member for Malpeque mentioned Dr. Norman Bethune because, when I have travelled to China, his name was mentioned everywhere. In only two years he established a relationship that is valued by Chinese people all over their country and is a matter of respect that Canadians hold.

I also want to mention another medical missionary, and that is Dr. Robert McClure. For over 25 years, from 1923 until 1948, Bob McClure was a medical missionary in China. In two years, Norman Bethune opened up the world's eyes to what was going on in China. What Dr. Bob McClure did was spend 25 years of his life establishing a deep and abiding friendship and relationship between Canada and China.

Bob was a very close friend of mine. As I have reflected on Bob, his ministry and his medical practice, I am reminded that he talked about the basic desires and needs of the Chinese people as being the same as those of us living in Canada. They want healthy families, prosperity and respect for human rights. They want to be able to live with dignity in the world and to travel, and they want to be part of a global community. The Chinese people themselves are not different from us by nature.

However, as we look at what has happened in recent years, we have concerns. I do not think those concerns are on this side of the House or that side of the House. They are shared in this House. We are concerned about the erosion of human rights. We are concerned about the treatment of the Uighurs. We are concerned about the aspirations of Chinese people for their full rights and dignity. Even as we have seen a rise in the standard of living in China, we have seen a diminishing of human rights, and we are concerned about that. We should express that concern, and we will continue to express that concern.

We are also concerned about issues such as the arbitrary detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. It is absolutely inappropriate. This government has been clear right from the beginning that we will not tolerate this. We have spoken up about that individually with China at every opportunity, every day, as well as with like-minded people from around the world. We are not resting until Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been returned home.

We stand up also for Canadians in other forms of detention. We have called again and again for clemency for Robert Schellenberg, making sure that the death penalty, which we are opposed to in this country, is not imposed on Canadians in China. It is absolutely critical that we stand up for these rights.

Canada, through the former CIDA, spent 30 years engaging in agricultural development and humanitarian assistance, ensuring that the base was laid for prosperity in that country. That has deepened our friendship and, I think, has deepened the expectation that we think China will hold Canada in high regard. It would be an understatement to say that we are disappointed in the way Canada is being held by China right now.

We will strongly assert that for the good of the Canada-China relationship, for the good of Canadians and Chinese citizens, we need to restart. We need to stop and look at this issue. We recognize that we did that in 2016, but the Canada of 2016 was not the Canada of 2020. Canadians' patience has been sorely tested by what has gone on.

We are concerned about these issues, but we are also mindful that it is an important economic relationship. It is an important cultural relationship. We have important academic relationships. We have students who travel back and forth between our countries. We have trade in goods and services. It is our second-largest trading partner, with almost 5% of our exports going to China.

We are mindful that this relationship is important. It is broken, but it is important. We want to dial down the rhetoric a bit to recognize that we are all on the same page in this House, and we have to find a way to restart and reclaim.

Getting to the particular motion on the floor today, I would say, very personally, I believe on this side of the House we are not against this motion. We recognize the concerns that have been raised, and the fears of Canadians and others in Canada, particularly since the imposition of the national security law. We recognize the concerns about Hong Kong and about people in Canada defending rights. We are concerned about interference.

We want to take the steps that are appropriate, not based on hearsay, and not throwing people out of the country because we hear something about them. We have due process in this country. We have courts. We have police procedures. We will do that, because we are a country of the rule of law.

However, we are mindful that interference by any foreign country, including China, is not acceptable. We are also mindful that Canadians are concerned about their cybersecurity, the Huawei 5G network and that decision. We are obviously concerned that we make that decision based on science, evidence and co-operation with other countries.

We recognize decisions have been made by our Five Eyes partners. We recognize that those decisions are important for us to understand, but we also recognize that we have an independent foreign policy in Canada. We do not just automatically do what even our like-minded partners want to do. We want to make sure that we have a thorough, thoughtful and careful process to make the best decisions for Canadians, making sure that security is foremost in our minds.

That is why I think we could come to an agreement in this House. We could drop the rhetoric. I am very glad that early on in this debate the member for Wellington—Halton Hills did indeed say he was open to discussion about how we could, perhaps in a small way, tweak this motion to find a way that we could all agree to it in this House.

I am hoping we have a chance to debate an amendment to this motion. That is why, at this point, I am putting forward an amendment to make a very small change to the motion that has been proposed by the member.

I move, seconded by the member for Winnipeg North, that we replace “make a decision on Huawei’s involvement in Canada’s 5G network within 30 days of the adoption of this motion” with “make a decision on Huawei's involvement in Canada's 5G network as soon as possible after the adoption of this motion”.

That would be my proposal to the House, to change that one part, just to make sure we have time to do the best of due diligence. We want to make sure we have the time to consult the partners we should be consulting, appropriately, to make sure that we engage in an independent foreign policy that will be for the betterment of all Canadians, and to do it well and carefully.

That is my proposed amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills if he consents to this amendment being moved?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for proposing the amendment. I have had discussions with the foreign affairs minister, but I have also had discussions with my colleagues on this side of the House.

The consensus with my colleagues is to not accept the amendment as it is too vague and does not put a time frame in place for a decision to be taken on this matter.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Therefore, there being no consent, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

We will now continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully, and the parliamentary secretary returned throughout his speech to the theme of what would seem to be near universal agreement in this chamber over the concerns we have raised and the concerns they share, yet the motion is precipitated by the lack of action by the government.

The parliamentary secretary speaks for a government that has refused to make a decision on Huawei and that has just now tried to propose an amendment to give Liberals even more time to potentially not make a decision on Huawei. Why have they taken so long, despite all of the announcements, and despite all of the statements that have been made, to make a decision on Huawei? Why will they not support the motion as written to fulfill the commitment the minister made this fall to have a new framework in this fall session?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to correct one part of what the member just said and that was that our government has done nothing. I would say he could more appropriately say that the perception is that we have done nothing.

I have been in opposition. I have sat on that side and on this side, and I know the difference. I know the way those on the other side of the House want to frame ideas, but believe me, this side of the House cares about Canadians' security. We care about Canadians' prosperity. We care about human rights, and we have a long history, far longer than anyone of that side of the House has in any of those issues.

We have been engaged in these issues since we were elected, and we will continue to be engaged in these issues, only we will not do it with broad rhetoric. We will not call people enemies with no evidence. We will not suggest that people should be thrown out of the country without due process of law. That is not the way we will work. We will continue to do this because the people of Canada have elected us to do our work, to do it carefully, to do it well and to not engage in that kind of work.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that we all appreciate the step just taken by the Liberals. We can believe that this compromise will lead to a positive solution.

That said, one thing has been bothering me since the start of our debate on this motion. Members will recall that our Chinese friends paid $1,500 to attend dinners organized by the Prime Minister.

Are our Liberal colleagues currently feeling uncomfortable about that?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, that gives me an opportunity to talk about the danger of this kind of debate. What happens in this kind of a debate is people start vilifying people of a different ethnic nationality, a different ethnicity. When people start doing that based on foreign policy, I think every member of the House needs to stand up and say we need to be very cautious about the way we characterize any Canadian, regardless of their ethnic background.

It is very troublesome and very worrisome to me that people would start to raise issues about anybody, whether it is a Conservative, Bloc Québécois, New Democrat, Liberal or Green, having activities or events with people of any ethnic background because of some concern they have with the country that they might have come from at any other time.

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

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to acknowledge my colleague for the work that he did and his tireless efforts to bring Canadians home during the pandemic. I know that many of my constituents appreciate it, because we were exchanging emails 24-7 for many days on end. I know that I am not the only MP in the House who wants to thank him for that work.

We know that when Canadians report incidents of foreign interference and intimidation, they are given the runaround. They get directed to their local RCMP or local police force, then to CSIS, then to Global Affairs and then back again. Will my colleague recognize that this is unacceptable, and that there needs to be one clear point of contact when it comes to those who are targeted by foreign agencies?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with that point. Very clearly, I think what the minister said this morning was that, indeed, the point of contact is the RCMP or the local police force if someone is being intimated, if someone is being harassed, if someone is being forced. His colleague, this morning, raised another—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

My apologies, but we have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to join everyone today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford.

I want to thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for bringing forward this motion. It is one that is timely and this is an issue we need to deal with immediately.

I want to recognize the communist regime in Beijing continues to abuse human rights of Falun Gong practitioners by harvesting their organs and denying them the ability to assemble and worship in their way. We know they are also denying those same rights to Uighurs and putting them into forced labour camps, and there are rumours of sterilizations. Let us also never forget the Tibetan monks who have been fighting against the Beijing regime for ages. Of course, all Canadians are too well aware of the human rights abuses being committed against the champions of democracy in Hong Kong by the Chinese Communist Party.

A lot of speakers today talked about Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. They have now been unlawfully detained for 708 days. I would just like to remind the House it was the Minister of National Defence who described it as “hostage diplomacy”. Both gentlemen deserve to be brought home and we need to do that collectively as quickly as possible.

The issue of intimidation of Chinese Canadians here by the Government of China has already been referred to, and it has been given the name Operation Fox Hunt. We know the ambassador to Canada from China has also made shocking threats about Canadians who currently live in Hong Kong. We have to take those threats seriously and we need to make sure the ambassador himself knows that was completely inappropriate. The government should be dressing him down and recalling its own ambassador from China because of those shocking revelations.

We are here to talk about Huawei, and the government has waited far too long. It has been over a year since the former public safety minister, Ralph Goodale, said that we would have a decision by the current Liberal government before the last federal election. This has dragged on and on, and meanwhile, all of our Five Eyes partners have already said no to Huawei. Allies in Europe under NATO have said no to Huawei and giving access to their 5G networks.

We cannot deny the fact that if we take those alliances and partnerships seriously in the areas of intelligence collection, the defence of our sovereignty and working in cohesion with like-minded nations, there is no way we should be allowing Huawei to even continue to speculate on having access to our future 5G network.

We know the Chinese Communist Party has great interests in Canada. It is buying up sections of our natural resources. Through its belt and road initiative, it has a strategy called the polar silk road. It has been building icebreakers and submarines with under-ice capabilities as both commercial and military vessels to transit the Northwest Passage. Because of that interest, because of its continued espionage and surveillance of Canadians here at home, we have to take measures now as a government to ensure we are protecting Canadians and our interests as best as possible.

As the shadow minister of National Defence, I have been following this debate for ages, and I have watched as one after another our Five Eyes partners have said no to Huawei. A lot of that is bound in article 7 of China's 2017 national intelligence law, which says that Chinese companies must support, co-operate with and collaborate in national intelligence work.

It could not be any clearer that the People's Liberation Army and the Communist Party of China have nefarious objectives with respect to collecting as much intel as possible from Canadians, Canadian companies and the Government of Canada, as well as all our allies at all those different levels.

Just to demonstrate how Huawei has already been used for intelligence-gathering purposes, all we have to do is look at what has happened in Europe. Back in 2009, Vodafone, which is the biggest company in Europe, installed a bunch of Huawei equipment throughout Italy. It was found that Huawei had provided equipment that was faulty. Vodafone's security briefing documents, which were given to Bloomberg, reported there were a number of switches that could have been exploited by the Chinese government to ensure it was given access the network in Italy. Even Vodafone has lived through this. A lot of us who have travelled to Europe as well are familiar with that company. We have to make sure that does not happen here.

Actually, it has happened here. All we have to do is look at the Nortel campus, which is now home to the Canadian Armed Forces. If we look at the history of Nortel, we realize that there was a bugging of the Nortel campus by a Chinese organization called Faxian Corp. It hacked into the emails of Frank Dunn, the CEO, 100-plus times a day and was able to use those to undermine Nortel's success. It also took and reverse-engineered a number of Nortel's hardware and products, which it was able to use back in China. It was also reported that it largely benefited start-up tech companies in China like Huawei. It took years for the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence to ensure the Nortel campus contained no bugging or surveillance equipment before they finally moved into their new location.

We know the People's Liberation Army has an elite cyberwarfare unit, unit 61398. It has hackers working all day and all night long who have hacked into companies like Equifax and stolen hundreds of thousands of documents on Canadians. It has hacked into the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, Nortel, plus many other companies here in Canada and around the world. That was one of the reasons why the United Kingdom reversed its decision to allow Huawei to have limited access to the 5G network. More importantly, it realized there were other options out there and it did not have to use just Huawei. There are other companies, like Nokia, Ericsson and others, that can provide 5G equipment.

I look at how our Five Eyes partners, as well as members of the Canadian Armed Forces, have been saying that we do not want to give the Communist Party of China and its regime in Beijing easy access to our 5G networks. The best way to say it was reported back in March in The Canadian Press, when Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance was worried about anything that would give China easier access to the Canadian military computer networks. He said that the Five Eyes network is “monumentally important” to Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces. He also stated:

I've made it clear that I have concerns...[with] China and China's cyber efforts...and clearly if there was to be an avenue, an easier avenue, for China to get into our digital networks then I would be [very] concerned about that.

We know that China has maligned activities in the past, especially in cyberspace, and we should not be giving it that easy access. Even the Australian military, the U.S., New Zealand and the U.K. are calling Huawei a high-risk vendor. I reiterate this. Are we going to just continue to delay and dither, which is the Liberal way, or are we going to recognize—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

My apologies, but we have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. One thing I have noticed that the Conservatives are not talking about is that we are engaged, worldwide, in the natural resource sector with China taking major investments and getting control of key natural resources, particularly in Africa and elsewhere.

It was under the Stephen Harper government that Prime Minister Harper approved the Chinese-state takeover of Nexen in a $15 billion deal. Then, the FIPA he signed with China gave China enormous rights to sue Canada in tribunals if we held China to any standards. These were rules that we could not get for any of our natural resources companies if they were working in China. We saw that Stephen Harper signed off on Petronas, the $6 billion purchase of Alberta Progress Energy. We had HD Mining where, under Stephen Harper, they were flying in Chinese workers and not hiring Canadians, in Canada, at Chinese-owned mines.

Now we see the Conservatives taking a strong line on China. I find it interesting that when it came to the natural resource sector, they opened the door for Chinese-state intervention time and time again.

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

Madam Speaker, I would just say that we have to remember that FIPA was a two-way street. It was put in place so that Canadian companies operating in China could actually have the same type of legal protections that they enjoy here in Canada. We have to address that first and foremost.

Second, I do have concerns over China's continued interest in our natural resource sector, especially critical and strategic infrastructure and resources. We have to put a whole new lens on how we look at China's continued attempts to purchase our companies, public ports, railways and anything that involves our ongoing infrastructure.

When it comes down to the end of debate on today's motion, it is time to make a decision on banning Huawei. We are requesting, through this motion, that the government do this now rather than delaying it and dithering again and again.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

I will quote an article that appeared in La Presse last year. It read:

Hong Kong democracy activists who are studying in Canada say that their freedom of expression is threatened even here. They accuse students from mainland China of harassment on campus and believe that Ottawa is ignoring these abuses.

I will quote the activist in question:

I secretly campaign for democracy in Hong Kong. I cannot do so publicly because I could be persecuted at any time by the Chinese government, my parents could lose their jobs and, if I returned to China, I would be arrested.

The motion before us refers to a robust plan to combat interference and intimidation. That is clearly what it is about.

What are the measures? What are they doing to prevent a Chinese student, in Montreal or Toronto, from experiencing what was mentioned in this article?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question.

These nefarious influence operators that are controlled by Beijing need to be brought to account. We have to start taking this seriously, using sanctions and other measures that are afforded to us under the Sergei Magnitsky law, to ensure that we send a strong message back to the Communist Party of China that we will not tolerate any more of its influence operations within our borders.

We have to stand with the human rights and democracy protesters in Hong Kong, across Canada and around the world. I have met with them many times, such as the Hong Kong Alliance, and want to assure them that we will do everything possible—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear my colleague reference the plight of Nortel. I have had the opportunity to work on Nortel's systems. I installed them and worked on them in the past. There was always a sense of pride knowing that it was a great Canadian story of a company that did so well here in Canada.

Given the track record of the Chinese government, the companies that are owned and controlled by it and its influence on Canada, using the example of Nortel, does the member not agree that the government has enough to go on to be able to ban Huawei and take decisive action?

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

Madam Speaker, as long as Chinese companies are controlled by the Communist Party of China and are obligated to serve Beijing first and foremost, we have to raise all red flags and make sure their objectives here in Canada are honest and truthful. Of course, we are doing that with Huawei.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have looked forward to trying to address what is a major failing on the part of the Liberal government. I am grateful to our leadership, our caucus leadership as Conservatives, for bringing forward a motion that challenges the Prime Minister to finally abandon his naive approach to doing business with China and take the steps required to protect Canada's national interests.

I believe that China, over the last decade, has become increasingly adversarial, confrontational and hostile, and increasingly a threat to our economic prosperity and national security. The bottom line is China is becoming an untrustworthy partner. Why do I say that? I would like to highlight six areas where I believe China needs to improve its relationship with the rest of the world.

First, the Chinese regime in Beijing, the communist regime, has failed to respect the rule of law and human rights. The plight of the Uighurs in east China is just one example, and the House has condemned the state of security of the Uighurs in east China. As Canadians, we have to see the human rights violations taking place in that country.

The second area is that China has failed to respect our national security as a country. Third, China has failed to respect our Canadian sovereignty. It has interfered in our domestic affairs. Fourth, the communist regime in China has failed to respect international treaties, norms and conventions. Its incursion in the South China Sea, which is contrary to international law, and its willingness to violate the treaty between China and the U.K. on Hong Kong, are evidence of that. Fifth, they failed to respect the international community in the area of trade and investment rules. Finally, the Chinese regime has failed to respect fundamental diplomacy and the transparency that we expect of our partners around the world.

I want to first deal with the rule of law and human rights. Today, our two Michaels, Spavor and Kovrig, are still in jail and are still not getting the benefit of the rule of law. The communist regime is holding them in retaliation for steps that Canada took in full compliance with our international extradition treaty with the United States. The communist regime in China simply does not share our value system. It does not share values such as openness, justice and tolerance. In fact, these values have been weaponized against us as Canadians.

China has also failed to respect our security as a country. The extent of its espionage in Canada and its theft of untold billions of dollars' worth of trade secrets and intellectual property over the years is still largely unknown, but we know we have paid a huge price. Nortel is just one example of how Canada has lost opportunities to grow our prosperity.

Our national security has been at risk for quite some time. Our national security agency, CSIS, has highlighted this regularly. Former national security adviser Richard Fadden has repeatedly warned Canadians of the risk that China represents to Canadian security. Even former ambassadors, like Guy Saint-Jacques and David Mulroney, have highlighted the fact that Canada has to be vigilant and protect itself on the security front.

As my previous colleague highlighted, our Five Eyes partners, the United States, U.K., Australia and New Zealand, no longer have confidence in us as the fifth partner because we will not ban Huawei from our networks. Even former BlackBerry CEO Jim Balsillie has expressed concerns about the risks to Canada's national security, especially if we allow Huawei to participate in the rollout of our 5G network across Canada.

I would like to also address the issue of China's failure to respect our sovereignty and its interference in our domestic affairs. It is becoming more and more well known that China is willing to bully and intimidate Chinese Canadians through organizations like the United Front and the Confucius Institute, and through Operation Fox Hunt.

My friend Anastasia Lin, who is a former Miss World Canada, has been outspoken about China's heavy-handed approach to using fear to intimidate Canadians to do China's bidding. That is wrong. CSIS, our national intelligence agency, has confirmed that Beijing routinely uses undercover state security officials and trusted agents, or proxies, to target members of Canada's Chinese community in an effort to silence critics of China's president, including threats of retribution against their families in China. The federal spy agency also says these illegal activities in Canada are “part of a global campaign of intimidation that constitutes a threat to [our country].”

Harassing members of our Falun Gong community in Canada is another example of a group that is mercilessly persecuted in China being intimidated here in Canada. People will say, “We know where your parents live in China and we are going to go after them. We are going to go after your siblings.” That is unacceptable by any international norm.

Fourth, let me address the failure to respect international law. China's incursions and breaches of international law are evident in the South China Sea, where it is looking to expand its footprint and push its territory further out by violating international norms. China failed to respect the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, in which the Chinese government declared the one country, two systems principle for Hong Kong. That has now been violated. The Chinese had promised that Hong Kong would not have to practise the socialist system of mainland China, but would maintain Hong Kong's existing capitalist system and way of life for 50 years, until 2047. What happened? There is no commitment to living up to its international commitments.

There is the flouting of trade laws. I just met with one of our key stakeholders in the agriculture industry who said they can no longer rely on China to respect international trade laws, such as those under the World Trade Organization.

There is also the issue of fundamental diplomacy and transparency. China's belligerent and bellicose treatment of Canada-China relations includes the imprudent rhetoric of its ambassadors to Canada. Rather than building bridges and exercising discretion, the last few ambassadors who have come to Canada have instead inflamed the rhetoric and inflamed the relationship between our two countries. It is totally unnecessary. Our diplomats are expected typically to be bridge builders, to seek common ground and to exercise the highest level of judgment and discretion. We just have not seen that from China's representatives in Canada.

China has also failed to share critical information about the coronavirus. It bought up Canadian PPE and hoarded it before Canada even knew the extent of this virus, and then sent a few token PPE items back to Canada, thinking that would curry favour with the government.

Finally, I want to address the issue of trade and investment. China is a non-market economy. It does not operate as a true free market. Its pervasive role in using state-controlled actors to do the bidding of Beijing is well known.

Its willingness to ignore World Trade Organization rules, including the dumping of Chinese products into North America on a regular basis—