SoVote

Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

May/12/22 12:23:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am looking at an article entitled “Chinese firm's Canadian contracts raise security fears: Barred by the U.S. and Australia, tech giant Huawei makes inroads in Canada”. It is dated from 2012. In that article, former prime minister Stephen Harper is touting the greatness of Huawei. As the hon. member mentioned that Huawei's charter makes it subservient to the Communist Party of China, did that charter also exist in 2012?

77 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

May/12/22 12:24:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a sad state of affairs when my friend has to go back a decade to find any article that links our former government to Huawei. I will say this. Huawei was here for a while and it has been trying to break into the Canadian and American systems. It had access to 3G technology and was supplying 3G technology to Canada, to the United States and to European nations. Everybody, at that point in time, 10 years ago, was hoping that the communist regime in Beijing was going to march forward into market-based economies that would respect human rights, democracy and civil liberties. That is not the case today. We know a lot more, and we should be banning Huawei.

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/12/22 12:25:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague criticized those benefiting from the Chinese government's largesse. Jean Charest, a Conservative Party leadership candidate, is among those who have supposedly benefited from this regime. He allegedly was paid tens of thousands of dollars by Huawei, an appendage of the Communist regime. I am relying on the knowledge of my colleague, who has been a member of the House longer than I have. Would the study of the contracts between Jean Charest and Huawei fall under the new committee being proposed by the Conservatives, or rather under the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, on which my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman sits?

113 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

May/12/22 12:25:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, well, just to put it on the record, I am supporting the member for Carleton in this leadership race, and I do share some of the concerns that my friend from the Bloc just raised. Let us go back, again, to the issue of Huawei. We now know that, within the Five Eyes relationship we have with the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, all four of those countries have banned Huawei. Why is Canada still dancing around the issue? The excuse used to be that we had to get the two Michaels out of detention in Beijing. Well, they are back in Canada, so why are we dancing around this issue when we should be banning Huawei from having any access to our 5G network?

131 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/12/22 12:26:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was the Conservative Stephen Harper government that did a trade deal that allowed a large oil sands project to be purchased by a Chinese state-owned company. It was that Conservative government that signed the FIPA trade agreement. The Conservatives want us to have amnesia. They want us to forget about those trade agreements, but they locked that trade agreement into 31 years. That is affecting us today and the next generation and the generation after that. They signed a deal that allows those companies to seek compensation. Not only are they allowed to seek compensation, but they are allowed to do it in secret, at the discretion of the sued party. Would the hon. member agree that this committee should have access to all memos and all documents about why the Conservatives allowed that tribunal to be done in secret?

144 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan

May/12/22 12:27:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would just say this to the Liberal-NDP backbencher. We know there was a time, 10 years ago, when we were trying to get China more integrated into the free market system, to work with capitalism-based nations and to work with democratic nations. We now know that this has all been in folly. I do have grave concerns over any of our natural resources being controlled by state-run Chinese companies, which are ultimately controlled by the communist regime in Beijing. I do believe the committee should make its own decisions about what documents it should be looking at and what documents should be brought forward. No stone should be left unturned. I think that, at the end of the day, Canada would be better served by it. The people of China would be better served by it, and Chinese Canadians here would appreciate us being able to work more collaboratively with them and the contributions they make to our great nation.

166 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

May/12/22 12:28:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants. The Conservative opposition day motion we are debating today has two points I agree with, while I completely disagree with the objective of the motion to appoint a special committee to examine and review all aspects of the Canada-China relationship. While it is good to have opportunities to review Canada’s relationships with any country so that we can find ways to improve or further strengthen our relationships in a positive way, the objective of this motion is to establish a platform that provides for further degrading Canada’s relationship with China. This motion is designed to provide a stage for harsh and one-sided critics of China. There are things about China that we can and should criticize. I do not foresee any positive outcomes from this proposed committee. Before I talk about the negative implications of having this committee, let me mention the points I agree with. First, the motion states that Canadians of Chinese descent have made immeasurable contributions to Canada. Absolutely, yes. Our wonderful country, Canada, is an ongoing success story of a nation with extraordinary cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity. I would like to recognize and appreciate the important contributions that Chinese Canadians have made and continue to make to Canada’s socio-economic, political and cultural heritage. The history of Chinese Canadians goes back as far as the 1700s, but the big movement started in the late 19th century. The road has not always been smooth. Chinese Canadians faced and continue to face discrimination. If this motion passes and the committee is established, I foresee increased negative perception about Chinese Canadians in our country. In spite of the historical discrimination they have faced, Chinese Canadians, with hard work and determination, have built on the opportunities our wonderful country offers and have been successful in every aspect of society, in the arts, sciences, sports, business and government. To put it simply, Chinese Canadians have made big contributions in building a dynamic and prosperous Canada. The second point the motion makes that I agree with is that the people of China are part of an ancient civilization that has contributed much to humanity. Again, yes, absolutely. China is a country with a 5,000-year-old civilization. Chinese people have contributed greatly to many fields during their long recorded history. Some of the greatest inventions that have been momentous contributions of the Chinese people to world civilization include papermaking, printing, gunpowder and the compass. Other than these two points, everything else in this motion aims to design a platform for degrading Canada-China relations, and negatively contributes to Canada’s interests. If this committee is established, I expect, first, an increased negative perception about Chinese Canadians in our country. We have seen anti-Asian racism on the increase in recent times. The kind of rhetoric I have heard before, and which I am sure will be repeated again in the committee, would lead only to increased negative perceptions of about 1.8 million Canadians who form over 5% of the population. The second negative effect, if this committee is formed, is further deterioration of our relationship with one of our major trading partners, thus affecting our businesses. China is one of our major trading partners. Canadian exports to China in 2021 were worth about $29 billion. Canadian imports from China were worth about $86 billion. In addition to low-tech, mundane products, China is also a major technology and high-end products supplier to the world, from telecom equipment to batteries for electric vehicles. China is also a manufacturing base for many products our industries need. The proponents of this motion appear to be in a make-believe world with no China. Make no mistake, China is and will continue to be a major economy in the world. Canadian businesses need a smooth trading relationship with China, but the end results of this motion, if successful, will achieve anything but that. The third outcome, if this committee is formed, is the negative impact on the flow of Canada’s most valuable and precious resource requirement, which is immigrants with knowledge, expertise and skills. China, for a long time, has been an important source of our skilled immigrants. Highly trained Chinese immigrants have become a significant part of our growing knowledge-based economy. While I do not expect a dramatic slowdown in new Canadians from China, the harsh rhetoric will certainly act as a dampener in our efforts to recruit the best and brightest brains as immigrants to Canada. The fourth negative issue, if this motion is successful, is a further fall in new technology-trained international students from China and a further decline in the numbers of these highly skilled students who become permanent residents and later citizens. In the growing knowledge-based economy, it is not natural resources that give us prosperity or a competitive edge. It is the knowledge, expertise and skills of the younger generation that can continue to keep us prosperous. In the digital economy, it is the bright, young graduates of today who give us the competitive edge. China has been a major source of international students, and while China remains the second-largest source for international students to Canada, the trend is declining. It was about 10% less in 2021. The decline began in 2019 and increased due to the pandemic. The anti-China bullhorn diplomacy will only add to the current problem. Is China perfect? No. China ignores the desire of the people of Taiwan, who have established themselves as an economically successful entity with a vibrant democracy. China has erased the culture and heritage of minorities in its land and the distinctive identities of Tibetans and Uighurs, and we have legitimate concerns for the people in Hong Kong. As one expert put it, China is neither as benevolent as it claims nor as malicious as it is criticized for being. Let me mention what Jeremy Paltiel, a China expert at Carleton University, said in an article on Global News on May 8, 2021. He said that to see China in the context of “friend or foe” is an overly simplistic approach. “I think that’s a false dichotomy,” he said. “China can be both different and not an enemy.” This nuanced understanding helps countries like Canada that are grappling with thorny issues, including human rights. The key to a successful Canada-China relationship is to be mindful of the differences without necessarily agreeing with or accepting them. Understanding is not the same thing as pardoning. “We have to be able to find a way of talking across difference without defining 'difference' as being 'enemy',” Paltiel says. “And if we can’t do that, we can’t live in a diverse world.” To conclude, this motion is not in the interest of Canada and Canadians. Testifying before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations in the previous parliament, the former Canadian foreign affairs minister and the member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount mentioned a four Cs approach of Canada to its relationship with China: compete, co-operate, challenge and coexist. He stated, “China is rapidly becoming a global influence with which all countries must learn to coexist. That means that we must recognize situations in which it is necessary to cooperate with China.” He continued, “[I]t also means that we are competing with China when it comes to trade and to promoting our values. It also implies challenging China when human rights are violated or Canadian citizens and interests are jeopardized.” However, the objective of the proponents of this motion is not to add value or have a meaningful discussion, but to degrade the relationship between Canada and China—

1327 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/12/22 12:38:38 p.m.
Watch

That is all the time we have. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

17 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/12/22 12:38:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a motion put forward by Conservatives to look at China–Canada relations. Again, the Conservatives believe that we should have amnesia and that we should forgive them for signing the FIPA trade agreement, for basically allowing the Chinese state-owned purchase of a large chunk of the oil sands and for signing a trade agreement that overrules provincial and local governments and indigenous rights. Does my colleague believe that we should be examining the FIPA and that we should have access to all information, especially why the Conservatives created secret tribunals for companies that dispute or go against social, environmental and economic policies that might hurt the profits of Chinese state-owned companies?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya

May/12/22 12:39:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am opposed to this motion, hence I am opposed to the formation of this committee, so this question is not relevant to me.

26 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

May/12/22 12:39:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the relationship with China is very complex and the member has touched on a couple of those issues. We have a large trading relationship that is very beneficial to Canada. It is $20 billion, up from $3 billion in 1992. However, as the member mentioned, we have human rights concerns. We have Huawei and we have concerns about that, etc. When it comes to looking at these issues and dealing with them, we know it is tulip season and the Tulip Festival here in Ottawa, but why are we tiptoeing through the tulips when it comes to China and not putting a committee together that is going to deal with it, ensuring we treat that relationship with the utmost professionalism that it needs?

125 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

May/12/22 12:40:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned human rights. Why focus on China alone? Why do we not focus on the killing of the Palestinian American Al Jazeera reporter, Shireen Abu Akleh, by the Israeli military even though she was wearing a press vest that clearly marked her as press? What about the human rights violations in Israel and Palestine as highlighted by the Human Rights Watch report? What about the apartheid that is practised by Israel on Palestinians, according to an Amnesty International report or what the former Israeli attorney general, Michael Ben-Yair, says, which is that the country is following the apartheid system? Why not discuss human rights beyond China? Why not include the Middle East issues too?

119 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

May/12/22 12:41:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the text of this motion, I think it is particularly narrow. Yes, the foreign policy concept and the landscape have changed, particularly with the war in Ukraine. As I have said before to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, there is actually an important conversation to be had about a changing foreign policy landscape. Would the member opposite welcome the idea of bringing a motion forward, not necessarily in a committee format but just even to have a debate day on Canada's role in the world? Would he welcome that? That would allow for a broader discussion, not just on China but indeed on the whole foreign relationship that Canada has in the world.

122 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

May/12/22 12:42:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I said that any discussion about Canada's relationship with China and any other country is good. We should have it so that we can understand what we can do better to further strengthen our relationship with different parts of the world. Canada is a trading nation. We need to have good relationships with all countries, and any discussion that can positively add value is always welcome.

70 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/12/22 12:42:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague did not answer my question because he does not support the motion. However, should the motion pass, maybe then he could answer the question. Would he then be open to examining the FIPA trade agreement and why the Conservatives signed an agreement that allows foreign companies to sue the Government of Canada for compensation, in private, at the discretion of the party being sued? Would my colleague at least speak to that? Does he agree with that provision, or does he disagree with that provision, which locks us into that agreement for 31 years, for a future generation, and overrides indigenous, local government and provincial rights? The Conservatives signed this agreement despite human rights violations happening in China in 2012, in 2014 and in 2015. It was happening then and it is happening—

138 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/12/22 12:43:30 p.m.
Watch

I have to give a few seconds for the hon. member for Nepean to answer.

15 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

May/12/22 12:43:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said before, I am not supporting the motion. I do not support the formation of this committee because in my view, this committee is going to be a one-sided, China-bashing drama. The rhetoric will only further degrade the relationship between Canada and China.

49 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

May/12/22 12:43:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today we are debating a Conservative Party opposition motion moved by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills that would create a parliamentary committee to study the Canada-People's Republic of China relationship. I have read the motion and will share my thoughts about it and about global affairs, as they relate to China. I will start with the provisions of the motion. Overall, they are normal for a committee and I have no objection to most of them. However, I think it is important to discuss the resources available to the House of Commons. The current hybrid format is already putting pressure on the resources available to the House and its committees. The creation of a committee would put additional pressure on the House of Commons staff. It is also important to recognize that Canada-China relations can be studied by the existing standing committees. For example, this is something that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade could study. If the Conservatives want to look at the relationship between Canada and China, that could be dealt with by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. The relationship between food security and energy could be dealt with by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which I chair, or perhaps the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. My point is that the issues related to this motion can be dealt with by the parliamentary committees already in place. I also object to the part of the motion that deals with paragraph (r) of the order adopted on Thursday, November 25, 2021, and seeks to give the proposed committee priority over all existing committees. As chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I may be a bit biased, but we are currently conducting an important study on the environmental contribution of agriculture. We are also looking into a future study on how Canada can best respond to the global food crisis caused by the war in Ukraine and on the future of food. I believe that this work will be important. I have a problem with the possibility that this work could be delayed by the creation of the proposed committee, since the member for Wellington—Halton Hills can raise this issue in other committees. I do want to acknowledge the merits of the motion, the first part of which tries to separate the issues and tensions between the Chinese government and Chinese Canadians or the Chinese people in general. There are no Chinese residents in my riding of Kings—Hants. However, I do believe that the manner and tone taken by the Conservative Party in their approach to this issue during the 43rd Parliament made many Chinese Canadians feel singled out. Let me also take this opportunity, while we are on the subject, to talk about the broader global issues that relate to China. As I have mentioned almost every time I have a chance in the House, the foreign policy landscape has changed significantly since the war in Ukraine on February 24. This presents an opportunity for all of us as parliamentarians and for Canadians to evaluate, position and think about Canada's role in the world, because the world has changed. China's positioning in the world has taken a very different tone, and I want to highlight and talk about some of that. There has been extensive debate in the House about the Chinese government's treatment toward Uighur people and about the human rights abuses. Indeed, in the 43rd Parliament, a resolution was passed condemning that behaviour. There is also Hong Kong. The way that arrangement always intended to work was that Hong Kong would be a separate democratic unit, and what we have seen over the last year has been anything but. The Chinese government has used its authority to change laws and legislation such that freedom of the press and freedom of assembly are not being recognized in Hong Kong. It is not Hong Kong in the way we have known it. I have heard other colleagues speak to aggression in the South China Sea as well. China is positioning some of its military force in that area in some of the disputed territories. I think that is problematic. Let us talk about the belt and road initiative. This is something of an economic policy that is tied to diplomacy and the way China is positioning itself in the world, particularly the developing world. China is using economic incentives to draw political and diplomatic interest toward Chinese-influenced spheres. That is something the western world will have to contemplate. Canada needs to be part of the conversations with our allies about making sure we have a response to democracies and countries that might be vulnerable to undue Chinese influence. I think what is perhaps most concerning has been the abstention of China on the UN Security Council votes, and indeed future votes the UN will have, to condemn Russia's illegal war in Ukraine. China has abstained. It has not shown a willingness to work with western allies to condemn what I think we all know to be true regarding the egregious and terrible actions on behalf of the Russian Federation. Those are but a few examples that suggest we have to be mindful of how Canada's public policy and global position will relate to China as the western world considers its next steps as a result of the war in Ukraine. We have seen great integration in NATO in its response to military and humanitarian aspects and immigration. I think it is fair to say that the war in Ukraine has actually strengthened resolve for the west to be an important player in the global element and to make sure that countries such as the United States, Canada, the European Union and other western allies are working together. We have a lot to offer in this domain, such as critical minerals. I have mentioned this before. China is a dominant player in the critical minerals sphere, but Canada has so much potential. I was proud to see this government introduce a $3.8-billion strategy for critical minerals, because our allies will need them to make the transition to a low-carbon economy. These are going to be important in the days ahead and we have the propensity to deliver them. I have made a number of interventions about the work on energy security and what we can do in this country to provide it to our allies. Finally, there is diplomacy and the importance of bringing like-minded countries together. Canada does have a role to play as a moderate power in the world. It is a convening role to bring countries together to help make a difference and move forward multilateral issues. These are all legitimate conversations that we should be having in the House. I will finish with this. I would love to see the member for Wellington—Halton Hills bring forward a motion that actually highlights the fact that the war in Ukraine is shifting the sands of the foreign policy landscape, and put in some provisions on how he or his party believes Canada should be positioning itself in the world. As I said to him on natural gas, the conversation is too narrow. Why does the Conservative Party not have a mature debate about where it sees Canada's role on three or four principles, and how best we can address Canada's role and position in the world? I think it would be an important conversation. At the end of the day, this is too narrow and—

1285 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/12/22 12:54:07 p.m.
Watch

We will have to leave the rest for questions and comments. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

19 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/12/22 12:54:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all of this has me wondering. I sometimes understand the political game of Liberals systematically opposing motions that come from the Conservatives and vice versa, on the principle that nothing good ever comes from the other team. However, I think it is a fairly old-fashioned idea that really should be reconsidered. Many of the indicators and facts here have already been proven. There is plenty of material to pore over, particularly in the case of Canada-China relations. Chinese Canadians are justifiably concerned about being harassed by the the Chinese communist regime. I do not understand why the Liberal Party stubbornly refuses to support such a sensible motion. As one of my colleagues suggested earlier, perhaps we could consider limiting the duration of this committee's mandate so that it is accountable to the House of Commons for a specific period of time. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Given the current context, does he not think there are enough concerns to warrant a specific committee to address the issue of Canada-China relations?

182 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 70