SoVote

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

Mr. Kody Blois

May/12/22 12:55:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. First, I think that I am an MP who generally recognizes that there are a lot of good ideas coming from everywhere in the House, including the opposition in some cases. I absolutely feel that the issues affecting Canada-China relations are important, but there are other important issues too, including Canada's relations with other countries and other regions. Perhaps it is important to raise this issue in the House, but my concern is the burden that this would place on the House's available resources. There is also the fact that this committee would focus exclusively on China without regard for the global context.

115 words

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

May/12/22 12:56:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, given the member's comments and what we have been hearing from the government side so far, they certainly seem to have some reservations with this motion. I note that in the last Parliament, if my memory serves me correctly, the Liberals voted against the creation of this committee. Having seen the committee in action, and seeing the very important work and information that has come from it, does the member not see the value of this committee? Would he perhaps consider voting for it this time around?

90 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/12/22 12:57:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this question gives me the opportunity to thank my hon. colleague, the former member of Parliament for Halifax West, Geoff Regan, who was the chair of that committee. I had the opportunity to speak with him a number of times. My issue does not lie in the importance of the relationship between Canada and China. It is that we are going at this too narrowly. Now, indeed, if the House votes for the motion today with a majority and we move forward, of course the government will oblige and this committee will move forward. However, my issue is that there are a number of relationships that Canada has in the world right now that we could be studying, and there is already a place on a permanent committee, such as foreign affairs, where these types of studies could be done quite exhaustively. This is creating an additional committee, and where do we stop? That is my question in return.

161 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/12/22 12:58:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if there was a new committee created under the government, it should be looking at the toxic drug supply crisis in this country. About 27,000 people have died, and the government has not put forward one single piece of legislation to address it. The Conservatives have also not brought forward a single response to that crisis. As to the motion, we know that indigenous people have been impacted deeply by trade agreements like the FIPA, which overrides indigenous rights. The Hupacasath First Nation, in my riding, and Brenda Sayers went to court against the Harper government to fight the FIPA, because with its provisions, companies can get redress should laws be put in place to protect land and water. Does my colleague agree that the impact on indigenous peoples of all trade agreements needs to be examined?

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

May/12/22 12:58:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me first address the member's opening comment on the opioid piece. Our Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, our government and our Minister of Health are working directly with the province the member resides in, British Columbia, to find ways to address the opioid crisis. We know that this is important. I know that there is—

61 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/12/22 12:59:19 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, we do not have time for more. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

17 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

May/12/22 12:59:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. When I was asked if I wanted to speak to our motion, I jumped at the opportunity, of course. Since the beginning of the debate this morning, I have been hearing my Liberal colleagues making assumptions about the way we see Chinese people. I would therefore like to read the first four paragraphs of our motion, which I think are very important, because in them we recognize the following: (i) that Canadians of Chinese descent have made immeasurable contributions to Canada, (ii) that the people of China are part of an ancient civilization that has contributed much to humanity, (iii) the distinction between the people of China and the Chinese state, as embodied by the Communist Party of China and the government of the People's Republic of China, (iv) that authoritarian states, including the People's Republic of China, increasingly pose a threat to the rules-based international order, It is very important to make this clear right away: The members of the Conservative Party recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the people of China and the Chinese communist regime. We feel it is very important to reconstitute the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, and that is what our motion would do. This motion is not designed to have the committee study the people, but rather the regime and what it is doing against its people and against states like Canada. We would ask the committee to conduct hearings on all aspects of the Canada-China relationship, including diplomatic, consular, legal, economic and security relations. I want members to understand why the Conservative Party wants this committee to resume its very important work. As I said, the Chinese people have a rich, ancient culture and plenty of goodwill. The problem is the communist regime, and we must remain vigilant and ensure that Canada is not oblivious to the actions of this regime. I will give an example. A young man of Chinese descent came to work as an intern in my office here, on the Hill, when I was a member of the former Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. He was very enthusiastic and helped me read some texts in Mandarin. We came up with discussion topics together and he told me about the government in his country of origin. He was very angry about how the Chinese communist regime attacks its own people. Take, for example, the political crisis in Hong Kong or China's view of Taiwan. These are all very important issues, and that is why this committee is so important, so that we can understand what is going on and study Canada's relations with China. When I was a member of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, many experts came to testify and brought up some issues that most people are unaware of. Parliamentarians from all parties were able to learn more about those issues. I moved a motion that enabled us to spend a few months studying the implications of China's national security vis-à-vis Canada's. Again, several witnesses came to testify. We had one particularly important witness, Philippe Dufresne, law clerk and parliamentary counsel at the House of Commons, who explained what happened with the Public Health Agency of Canada documents about the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg. We learned how that worked. The committee also had an opportunity to hear from experts from the Pentagon, who shared information about China's Arctic ambitions. They explained that, in 2015, the Chinese government designated the polar region, the deep seabed and outer space as China's new strategic frontiers, having evidently recognized that these regions were rich in natural resources. The Pentagon also published a report in which it warned that the Chinese government is mapping the Arctic seabed. That is another reason for the Government of Canada to hurry up and build a polar icebreaker. We need to be present and start monitoring the borders in that highly strategic region. Huawei is another file we heard a lot about. We on this side of the House do not understand why the current government has not shared its decision on whether Huawei will be banned from Canada's 5G network, when the four other member countries of the Five Eyes have confirmed that there are obvious national security concerns with Huawei's 5G technology. Christopher Parsons, from the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab, came to talk to us in committee. He said: A rising concern is the extent to which Canadian companies, such as our telecoms, might become dependent on products made by Chinese companies, inclusive of Huawei. Dependency runs the risk of generating monocultures or cases in which a single company dominates a Canadian organization's infrastructure. In such cases, up to three risks can arise. First, monocultures can enable foreign governments to leverage dependencies on a vendor to apply pressure in diplomatic, trade or defence negotiations. Second, monocultures can create a path dependency, especially in 5G telecommunications environments, where there's often a degree of vendor lock-in into vendors' telecom equipment. Third, monocultures risk hindering competition among telecommunications vendors, to the effect of increasing capital costs to Canadian telecommunications providers. One of the benefits of having this committee on Canada-China relations was receiving this type of expert who could explain to us the risks of having business relationships with a company like Huawei. Some will say that it is an independent company. However, the way things work in China, the Chinese communist regime can decide to take control and require Chinese businesses to meet its demands. Even though the company claims to be independent, the regime has full control over all businesses, subject to its whims. The Liberal government said that it was not worried, that there was no danger, that the communists were not dangerous. I find it really strange that the government would deny being concerned about a regime like the Chinese Communist regime. Another witness, David Vigneault, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, also appeared before the committee. He said, and I quote: I will tell you that the Chinese government is indeed engaged in all those activities.... With respect to interference, as I have said publicly, Chinese government entities are interfering with Canadian democratic life. They are interfering with people in Canada using people from China, cyber threats and also people here in Canada, who are co-opted to work with the Chinese government. It's something we are looking into. With China, but also with other countries, we must absolutely keep our guard up, take very concrete steps to protect Canadians and do it in a coordinated way with our allies. It's the only way I believe we can protect Canadians. It was not me, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who said that. It was David Vigneault, the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, who said that in his testimony. All of this was included in the first version of the committee on Canada-China Relations, whose meetings and studies were unfortunately terminated when the session ended with the 2021 election. We were not even able to write a final report. Our work came to a halt and was never restarted. However, there is still too much information missing that is critical and vital to national security and to economic and diplomatic relations between the two countries. That is why I believe that it is important to resume the work of the committee on Canada-China Relations. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the target is the Chinese communist political regime. It is certainly not the people, who are too often the victims of this regime.

1312 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/12/22 1:09:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a bit concerned about the appropriateness or relevance of taking a full opposition day to talk about our relationship with another country. Foreign policy is very important, but right now in Canada, there are a bunch of major crises that we could have debated all day. For example, there is the housing crisis, which I think is quite important. There is also the climate crisis, and we could have spent all day trying to come up with solutions to that. There is the health crisis that we are just now emerging from. The Bloc Québécois has proposed holding a health summit. Health transfers are extremely important. There is also the language crisis in Quebec. We could have spent a day on that to find real solutions, not the solution that the government has come up with, the modernization of the Official Languages Act, which will not solve the problem of French in Quebec. The Conservatives could even have spent the day on inflation. They never stop talking about that. We could have spent a day discussing inflation. In my opinion, that would have been much more worthwhile. Why did they choose this topic?

201 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 70