Mr. Speaker, this week is the anniversary of the final report of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference. I want to quote two conclusions from that report. First, the report states, “the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the most active perpetrator of foreign interference targeting Canada’s democratic institutions. The PRC views Canada as a high-priority target.” The report goes on to say, “The PRC targets members of Chinese Canadian diaspora communities for the purposes of repression, influence and forced return of targeted individuals to the PRC.”
In its own country, China's repression of its own people is well documented, and, until recently, the Prime Minister agreed. During the election, when asked the question about the greatest security threat to Canada, the Prime Minister responded, “I think the biggest security threat to Canada is China”. However, just nine months later, the Prime Minister says he is forging a “new strategic partnership” with our greatest security threat.
Trade with China is necessary. A positive diplomatic relationship with China is necessary. Forging a “new strategic partnership” with China, however, is a choice. Declaring that we are setting ourselves up for a Chinese-led new world order is a choice. Doing these things with great fanfare and media attention is a choice, and choices made by governments have consequences. Attempting to trade American unpredictability for Chinese dependence is not the answer.
When Lithuania opened an office in Taiwan, China blocked the majority of their imports within months. When Norway awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese dissident, relations froze for years. When Korea accepted THAAD missile deployment, it endured state-sanctioned tourism embargoes, costing its economy billions. Deals with China have consequences. The government owes Canadians an explanation for why it has reversed course and has moved from a position of declaring China our greatest security threat to a position of strategic partnership and ever-growing alignment.
Can the parliamentary secretary provide Canadians that explanation?