Debates of May 25th, 2020

Canada-China Relations

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that during the excellent speech by the member, who is well known as a champion of human rights, I heard some members heckling about the “second coming” in response to the last question. I certainly hope a member's personal faith would not be used as a basis for insulting heckles during an important debate in a conversation like this, so I expect members of the NDP in particular could do better in terms of decorum and respect.

I wonder if the member could talk about why it is important to get the Canada-China committee up and running again very soon, so we can delve further into these questions under that format.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first off, the Canada-China committee needs to be meeting for all of the reasons I articulated in my speech. It is profoundly necessary.

I am not really concerned about any heckling. My faith is secure in Jesus Christ, and I am quite confident in that.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I freely admit that I was surprised at the motion moved by our Conservative Party friends even though the Conservatives are always full of surprises. For example, they are taking full advantage of the Canada emergency wage subsidy even though they asked the government to make sure nobody undeserving could benefit from the government's measures. Few things the Conservative Party does should surprise us.

When I read the motion carefully, it does not seem particularly objectionable at first glance. In recent months, we have all watched as the People's Republic of China used the Hong Kong administration to repress the pro-democracy movement. We were all appalled. Before the pandemic, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations had plans to examine this issue and study the situation in Hong Kong.

The previous speaker talked about what is happening with the Uighurs, Taiwan and Tibet. The Special Committee on Canada-China Relations was supposed to look at those issues too.

Ignoring the fact that the committee intended to address the issue suggests some degree of intellectual dishonesty. One wonders why the motion denouncing the imprisonment of human rights advocates was referred to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations under the guise of examining the security legislation the People's Republic of China is seeking to impose on Hong Kong.

We agree that we must address the deeply worrisome law introduced by the Communist Party of China during its congress. We must insist that the People's Republic of China respect the one country, two systems agreement and that it keep the promises it made to the United Kingdom when the UK handed the territory over.

We expect the People's Republic of China to keep its commitments. We can demand nothing less given its thinly veiled threats against the territory's independence. After the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong, we would have expected the situation to de-escalate, but such was not the case, since the People's Republic of China is taking advantage of the current pandemic to tighten its hold on the territory.

I agree with our Conservative Party friends that the Minister of Foreign Affairs must remind authorities from the People's Republic of China that the blood of Canadian soldiers was shed to defend Hong Kong and that we will not tolerate the violation of the rights of those citizens.

That being said, let us come back to the text of the amendment to today's motion. I must say that, as in the case of the December motion that instituted the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, this proposed amendment to the motion regarding the committee's interim report reeks of crass partisanship. In fact, the Conservatives are not even trying to hide the fact that their only objective is to make the Liberal government look bad.

Their motion seems motivated by a preconceived idea. I would like to know what the Conservatives have to say about the objective that was very clearly announced by the Israeli government, that of annexing new Palestinian territories, namely, the colonies, the Jordan Valley and the area north of the Dead Sea.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

That is irrelevant.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

It is relevant, Mr. Member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. When one has principles based on respect—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order.

I would like to remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues. I would also ask them not to shout when someone is speaking.

The hon. member for Montarville.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed relevant, because when it comes to respect for human rights, that is not something that applies only when it suits our ideology.

There are clear human rights violations happening elsewhere in the world, too. It is interesting that the Conservatives speak out less on certain situations. Furthermore, according to the Conservatives, the very laudable purpose of the motion moved last December creating the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations was to improve the relationship between the People's Republic of China and Canada.

Did anyone hear the inflammatory speeches from our Conservative colleagues? How are comments like the ones we are hearing from the Conservatives supposed to improve in any way the relationship between the People's Republic of China and Canada?

Personally, I seriously wonder about the motivations of the members of the official opposition. They have once again moved a surprise motion. They want the work of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations to be subjected to a motion adopted in the House. They pulled this stunt back in December and they are doing it again today.

I completely agree that the subcommittee has to look at the human rights violations in Hong Kong, the human rights violations against the Uighur people, the tense situation with Taiwan and the situation in Tibet. These are topics the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations was going to address anyway.

Why are the Conservatives putting on this show?

It was something we were going to study anyway. The Conservatives' current motivations seem questionable, to me. At the very least they are odd, if not malicious.

As I said, I have no objection on the substance of the issue. Obviously, we can only agree with taking a closer look at the human rights violations and the looming threat of the People's Republic of China over the territory's autonomy. We must reiterate Canada's position: defence of human rights and the autonomy of Hong Kong. Why is this motion worded this way today?

If every member of the House agrees, then why this partisan theatre in the House? I find this to be quite appalling and I do not mind saying so.

[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 appreciate the comments from my friend across the way. One thing that is important to recognize is that, as the government and even when we were in opposition, we often talked about the importance of freedoms. I have given many speeches in regard to the charter and how proud I am. Canadians have adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we understand how important it is that we have freedoms.

Where we can, we should be promoting our Canadian values throughout the world. There could be a time when we are debating that issue more than others in the House, but today I thought we were going to be talking about the important issue of the coronavirus and the impact it is having on Canadians, particularly workers and small businesses. What are the member's thoughts on what today was going to be about?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a question about how the House would operate in the coming days and weeks was raised during the negotiations that took place in recent days. There were questions about whether our debates should focus solely on the current situation, as was the case with the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. This pandemic obviously requires all our attention, but the world is still turning. Other concerns demand our attention.

I understand what our colleague is saying, but that is precisely what is at issue in the debate we are holding today regarding what form parliamentary work will take in the next few days. Will parliamentarians be free to address questions other than this important and vital issue of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic? Will we be limited to discussing only this pandemic? I understand what my colleague is saying. I completely agree that we must focus on this crisis that has claimed thousands of lives in Canada. It is a tragedy, and we must curb and stop the spread to limit the number of deaths.

However, this must not prevent parliamentarians from addressing other current issues that are just as important. The people of Hong Kong are currently experiencing repression. As they see the anti-riot police being deployed by the territory's government, which is funded and supported by the People's Republic of China, they believe that what they are going through is just as important as the coronavirus crisis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy serving with my friend on the Canada-China special committee.

I just want to respond to some of the things he said, and maybe he can then respond to that. He raised the issue of the situation in Israel and the Palestinians. That would be a very interesting subject for an opposition day motion from the Bloc, if and when the Bloc is able to have that opportunity. It is an important issue. I will not try to get into my views on that subject, because I would like to have at least five to 10 minutes to do so. It is an important issue for discussion, perhaps in a different context.

The member is not sure about our motives. I think my motives are very pure. However, at the end of the day, he does not have to vote on my motives; he just has to vote on what is in the motion.

The critical piece of this amendment that is unique is that it would actually allow the committee to meet digitally. Right now, the Canada-China special committee might wish to meet, but it cannot meet because it does not have the special permission to meet through video conference. Therefore, if the members support this amendment, they will be empowering the committee to undertake its important work but to do so using video conferencing. If the member thinks the committee should be able to get back to work and meet remotely, given how critical the Canada-China relationship is in the midst of all the things that are going on, then I suggest he support the amendment to allow that to happen.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saluting my colleague for his temperate response to my intervention. I would have expected him to make these remarks in his speech on the committee's report.

As I said, I have no objection to the substance. My problem is with the form. The speeches my colleagues just made were rather fiery. I have a very simple question: What is the point of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations if the Conservatives have already made up their minds? That is the problem. They seem to have already decided what the conclusions of this committee's work should be. If the Conservatives have already made up their minds anyway, regardless of what they are going to hear, I see no point in resuming our meetings.

That being said, I completely agree with the substance, as I said earlier. What is happening right now is extremely troubling, and we cannot stay silent. If we need to allow the committee to resume its work, I am all for it. I am very concerned about the fact that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has not yet been authorized to resume sitting. I am just as concerned about the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. I have no problem with the idea of getting the committee back on track. That is not the issue. The issue is that I do not know why the Conservatives are so eager to resume the committee meetings other than to play political games that I do not approve of. My objective is to have us genuinely work together to find ways of improving relations between the People's Republic of China and Canada, which, it should be noted, have deteriorated considerably over the past few months under the Liberal government. However, the Conservatives' remarks do not seem to be aimed at improving anything.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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

I think we agree that we stand with the protesters in Hong Kong, and also with the Tibetan and Uyghur peoples. I would like to ask him about something he brought up, because the Conservatives like to pick and choose whose rights to stand up for, based on their ideological or political interests.

Are human rights universal and should they apply to Palestinians?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, and I said so during my speech. I do not think that you can pick and choose when it comes to human rights. You cannot defend the rights of the people of Hong Kong and then deny fundamental rights to Palestinians, as is currently being done by Israel.

It is particularly concerning that we are now talking about a bill brought in by the People's Republic of China on domestic security that will also have an impact on Hong Kong. However, at nearly the same time, the Government of Israel has a plan to annex settlements in the Jordan Valley and areas north of the Dead Sea.

Earlier a Conservative colleague said that it was the Palestinians' fault that they were under Israeli occupation. Comments like that are completely unacceptable. Human rights are being violated, and we must protect human rights everywhere.

I hear some people saying that the Bloc Québécois foreign affairs critic has taken an anti-Israel stance. That is not at all the case. We completely agree with a solution that would preserve peace and security in the region. However, we know that, if Israel annexes new territories, the possibility of lasting peace and security for Israel and Palestine will be even more remote. We therefore need to work to promote peace, and that goal will not be achieved through Israel's annexation of territories that do not belong to it.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc Québécois is just demonstrating the value of having discussions about foreign affairs issues in Parliament and in parliamentary committees. I would love to see the foreign affairs committee back in action. I would love to see the Canada-China committee back in action. I would love to see the Bloc, as well as the Conservatives, able to propose opposition days again, and again we can have these conversations about the Canadian response to events in the Middle East, the human rights issues in Africa and in parts of Europe and beyond.

We have an opportunity to get the China-Canada committee—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. The hon. member for Montarville in 20 seconds or less, please.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I will simply say that, in principle, I would love for the committee to resume its work.

All these matters concerning the rights of the Uighurs and the rights of the people of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet have been put on hold because of the situation in Parliament since the beginning of the health crisis. We therefore need to get back to work to study these issues. My problem has to do with our Conservative colleagues' heated rhetoric against the People's Republic of China, when we want to improve relations.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.