SoVote

May/12/22 4:15:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to clarify that I completely agree with my hon. colleague. I was trying elicit from him the distinction—

29 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/12/22 4:15:54 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order; that is a point of clarification. I will not allow a back-and-forth on this. We will resume debate with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

37 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/12/22 4:16:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that our party is once again pursuing the resumption of the work of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. The committee was initially created in December of 2020, through a motion put forward by the then foreign affairs shadow minister, the member for Durham, and I want to recognize his leadership in bringing this initial motion forward. At the time, about the need for a special committee on Canada-China relations, he said, “this is the most fundamental foreign-policy relationship Canada will face in a generation. We do not need a three-day study at a standing committee. We need a specialized multidisciplinary committee”. From its creation, the committee did critical and relevant work. One indication of that is that, while most parliamentary committees barely get mentioned in the press, this special committee broke news stories at virtually every single public hearing. Its work fed a public hunger to understand the challenges facing Canada in this context and to propose concrete solutions. Its work was covered and discussed not just here in Canada, but around the world. I have met with legislators in the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, Lithuania, and many other countries who were deeply interested in the work of and the information uncovered by the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. The committee had partisan moments and unifying moments. My hon. friends on the committee will remember that there were times when we heckled each other because we disagreed about the appropriate courtesy owed to a witness. There were also times when we cried together over the systemic sexual violence targeting victims of the Chinese Communist Party in East Turkestan. Regardless of these variations, it is beyond dispute that the committee was working. The committee was driving public awareness and policy toward solutions that had not previously been on the Canadian or even the global political agenda. It unanimously endorsed Magnitsky sanctions for those involved in human rights abuses in Hong Kong. It unanimously endorsed the middle way approach for Tibet. It unanimously ordered the production of documents related to the Winnipeg Lab affair. It played a key role in furthering discussions about the Uighur genocide, which led to this Parliament to be the first in the world to recognize it. It highlighted the arbitrary detention of Canadians, including the ongoing detention of Huseyin Celil. It exposed the ongoing reality of the Chinese Communist Party's interference in Canadian domestic affairs. Whether it was in agreement or disagreement, it must be acknowledged that what came out of this committee on Magnitsky sanctions, Hong Kong, Tibet, Uighurs, the Winnipeg lab affair, and many other points, were defining points of conversation that shaped the life of the 43rd Parliament. It was sometimes messy and not always easy, but the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations clearly got results, and it got those results in spite of the fact that it had its work repeatedly interrupted by the government. The committee was suspended during the early months of the pandemic, even though all opposition parties wanted it to continue. It was then shut down for prorogation and dissolved prematurely with the election. All together, given the interruptions, the committee only got in about a year's worth of work. While it presented multiple reports and advanced key recommendations, the committee was not able to complete its agenda and many critical items remained unexplored. This special committee deserved an opportunity to at least bring its work to a fruitful conclusion, to bring forward recommendations out of its study on national security, to study strategic dependency and trade, to engage further on threats to Taiwan and various other human rights issues, and to speak to Canada's overall policy framework for principled engagement with China and broader engagement with the Indo-Pacific region. As a result of the committee's diligent work, I believe the CCP, which actively seeks to advance its interests here in Canada, has clearly identified the fact that it does not want this committee to get back to work, and it is doing so shamefully by trying to suggest that criticism of the CCP, and even of the CCP interference in Canada, is somehow an attack on the Chinese people. Those slanders were repeated today on multiple occasions by some Liberal MPs. As I have said repeatedly, the opposite is true. The Chinese Communist Party in its early years was explicit about trying to annihilate China's ancient and beautiful civilization. Today, the CCP is more subtle and seeks to co-opt the symbology of China's history and historical ideals as tools to serve Marxist materialism. However, Marxism is not China, and China is not Marxism. As I told the House two years ago: ...we must advance a decoupling of these ideas, a recognition that Marxism's dehumanizing materialism is deeply alien to China's rich and ancient traditions of personal responsibility, reverence for beauty, continuity with the past and respect for the non-material aspects of life. It is no contradiction, and in fact it is quite a natural combination, to love China and hate communism. The CCP wants this committee gone, yet here we are. I want to recognize the hard work and the courage of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Portage—Lisgar, and I particularly salute the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He has steadfastly worked to bring about the return of this committee, and he is the only member of the House to be personally named in Chinese government sanctions, which he has rightly recognized as a badge of honour. As much as I would have liked for the work of the committee to continue uninterrupted, even last summer and last fall, it is important to use this opportunity to take note of what is happening right now and what has changed since the work of this committee was aborted just under a year ago. The global context has obviously shifted significantly. In the early months of this committee's existence, public attention was very much focused on the actions of the Chinese government because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The world was faced with immense disruption as a result of a pandemic that began in China and which was covered up for a long time by the Chinese Communist Party. Even in the midst of that pandemic, many nations and many international organizations were unwilling to talk about the fact that a novel coronavirus emerged in the same region where gain-of-function experiments were performed on coronaviruses and where authorities did everything they could to hide the outbreak until it was too late. Although our initial motion was proposed and passed before the pandemic, its work aligned with broader public discussion, though a discussion that was ignored and dismissed by many elites, about the way that dangerous experimentation and the suppression of dissent may have created the environment in which a pandemic could start and spread. For those who thought that China's basic dictatorship offered a model for more efficient and effective administration and management, the COVID-19 pandemic powerfully demonstrates the opposite. Although free societies did not always handle the pandemic well, they had the tools to hear the truth and to grow and change in response to new information. In the absence of open deliberation about the pandemic, scientific opinion was suppressed in China, and leaders who pursued failing strategies that caused this global pandemic were not held accountable for their failures. I think that the special committee should return to questions around the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic and the guard rails that we need in the context of scientific co-operation, as well as the pressing problem of CCP and other foreign state actor interference in Canada. The context in which we holding today's debate is also one in which the focus of our foreign policy has rightly shifted to Putin's invasion of Ukraine. It is worth asking this question: In light of the invasion of Ukraine, can we still say that the Canada-China relationship “is the most fundamental foreign-policy relationship Canada will face in a generation”? I believe that it is. To start with, the invasion of Ukraine reminds us of past acts of violence by the CCP and future acts of violence no doubt being contemplated. The military and rhetorical attack on Ukraine's separate existence reminded many of the invasion of Tibet more than 60 years ago. The attacks on linguistic and religious freedom we have seen in Russian-occupied Ukraine since 2014 mirror the escalating attacks on linguistic and religious freedom we are seeing in Tibet. The invasion of Ukraine could also establish a precedent, whereby revisionist powers ignore hard-won norms of international law and instead try to violently control their determined sphere of influence. Ongoing aggression from the Chinese state in the South China Sea and threats to Taiwan demonstrate that Russia is not the only revisionist power seeking to extend itself beyond its borders in violation of international law. What is happening in Ukraine also demonstrates a profound failure of deterrence. Although the world has responded to the invasion of Ukraine, we failed to sufficiently demonstrate in advance what the costs of that invasion would be for Russia. We need to make sure that we do not repeat this failure of deterrence in the case of Taiwan. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia signed onto the Budapest memorandum guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine's relinquishment of its nuclear weapons. Prior to the handover of Hong Kong to China, the Chinese government committed to a one country, two systems framework, which was supposed to guarantee, as a matter of international law, the protection of Hong Kong's unique status. Both the Putin and the Xi regimes have shown flagrant disregard for their own past commitments. This dishonesty in their dealings needs to be recognized, for our own security and our own protection. I note as well that while we have taken RT off the airwaves, Chinese state-controlled media continues to push disinformation, including disinformation about Ukraine. There are, of course, many important differences between Russia and China. Notably, China is a much more important global player than Russia. It has a much larger economy. It has more institutional capacity, and it likely has a much more capable military. We also do not have the same developed structures of strategic co-operation among like-minded nations in the Indo-Pacific region as we do in Europe with NATO. In a scenario of potential further escalation of conflict with the predominant authoritarian power in the Indo-Pacific and in the world, we face a potentially larger threat, and we are potentially less ready to respond, compared to the situation in Europe. This should underscore that what is happening in Ukraine should lead to a deepening of our commitment to engaging in the vital conversation around our position in the Indo-Pacific and our response to the growing power and aggressive potential of the Chinese state. In light of all these challenges, I look forward to engaging with colleagues and getting back to work at a special committee on Canada-China relations as soon as possible.

1901 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

May/12/22 4:26:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on one of the member's latter points, which was that the Russian economy is largely oil and gas, and that is it: It is an unimportant economy. It is about the same size as Canada's, with a population of 145 million people. The Chinese economy, on the other hand, is very integrated. It is integrated into the world system, and very much more dependent upon various trade routes and supply chains. In the member's view, is the threat of conflict greater with China or greater with Russia?

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/12/22 4:26:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think there are some similarities, but there are also some important differences. What we have seen in the case of the response to the Russian invasion is that by working together, the community of democratic nations can inflict serious economic consequences through sanctions. In the case of Russia, we on this side of the House believe that there is still more work to do. It is important to point out that while a similar tool kit could potentially be used in response to an act of aggression against Taiwan, it would be much more difficult to do so against a relatively much larger and more integrated economy. If we were ever to get into that situation, I would advocate that we do what was necessary to deter that aggression, of course, but the goal here should be deterrence. The goal should be to recognize that there was a failure of deterrence in the context of Russia and Ukraine. We need to do better, in the case of possible aggression against Taiwan, and to be clear about deterring that aggression and about what the consequences would be. This is why this committee is necessary, to dig into those critical issues at such a critical time.

207 words

All Topics

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

May/12/22 4:27:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, could the member expand on what issues Conservatives would like to see addressed at this committee? For example, would they like to see the safety of Canadians in China, human rights concerns for the Uighur population or forced labour and its impacts on our supply chain?

48 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/12/22 4:28:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I mentioned a number of items in my speech that we should address, but the member mentioned at the end of her question an important point that I did not address directly: the issue of forced labour in our supply chain. The government has been behind on action on this. We could be doing more to collaborate with other countries. There are other countries that have stronger regimes in place. Personally, I am very supportive of something like the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act that has been passed in the United States, which seeks to designate the area of East Turkestan. Perhaps we could envision a framework where regions could be specifically designated as being of particular concern, where there are high levels of slave labour. There are various bills before the House right now that seek to deal with issues of slave labour. I see we are going to be debating Bill S-211 in this place very soon. These are important pieces of legislation for us to discuss and move forward on, but as well we should consider frameworks that are a bit different from that framework: frameworks such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, where we specifically identify regions with high levels of slave labour and place particular restrictions around trade involving those regions.

221 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

May/12/22 4:29:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate today, I have heard a lot of conversation about Huawei, Canadian security and issues along those lines. One of the issues that we came across in the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was the purchasing of scanners for our embassies. In particular, the company Nuctech is a Chinese company that has a connection with high-ranking officials in China. We still need those scanners, and I would like to hear how the member feels. Might this be something the committee would also consider pursuing?

91 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/12/22 4:30:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issue of Nuctech was discussed at certain points in the committee. More broadly, we see this trend where my party, and some members of Parliament in other parties as well, are aware of the significant risks that come with doing business with Chinese state-owned and state-affiliated companies: the risks to our security and also the risks to human rights. Notwithstanding the fact that these issues are being discussed, there does not seem to be a sort of fulsome penetration of the recognition of this problem within all aspects of the bureaucracy, where there still are significant gaps in terms of procurement happening that raise major questions and concerns about national security and human rights. We have yet to hear a decision from the government on allowing Huawei into our 5G network. It has been years that we have been told the decision is coming. We need to have decisions on this, and we need to move forward in a way that reflects the recognition of the problem across all levels of government.

177 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/12/22 4:31:03 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, The Economy; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Health. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

54 words

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

May/12/22 4:31:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Avalon. I consider it an honour to offer a few thoughts on this debate, and I appreciate it being brought forward onto the floor of the House today. May I say, as a starting proposition, that I regard the government of China as an asymmetrical, existential threat to Canada unlike any of our other potential opposition. I also take the view that we, as Canadians, are exceedingly naive about the ambitions of the Communist Party of China, and I also take the view that the Chinese government knows a great deal more about us than we know about it. I thought it would be helpful if I went through my week and talked about the various times this issue had come up. This week was science meets Parliament, and I had an absolutely fascinating conversation with a scientist from the University of Toronto who is a leading scientist on the CRISPR technology for gene editing and gene splicing. He was brilliant. It was fascinating, and the mind leaps to all kinds of possibilities; however, on second thought, not all of these possibilities are to the betterment of humankind. When I asked the scientist about Chinese involvement, he said that this was open source technology and that there was an exchange of research, but I got the distinct impression that the knowledge flow seemed to be one way. We are in a situation where Canadian brains and Canadian taxpayers' money funds leading-edge research and someone else benefits. Then, the someone else who benefits turns it into commercial technology and sells it back to us. It is not a happy cycle. This is a serious, serious issue in the academic community. Second, last night was Taiwan Night at the Chateau Laurier. I cannot imagine that anyone walked away from that evening thinking that the Ukrainian issue was anything other than the number one threat to the disturbance of world order. I can also not imagine that anyone would walk away from that night not thinking that a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan was anything other than the number two threat to world order. This is our eleventh largest trading partner, and fifth largest trading partner in Asia. It shows that this is a threat that we think is kind of over there, but in fact it is quite relevant to us. I just point out as an illustration the speed with which the independence of Hong Kong was simply rolled up, regardless of the millions of Hong Kongers who took to the street to protest their rights and their freedoms, which have now effectively been lost. Can we be so naive as to think that the Chinese government wants to do the same thing in Taiwan? The third item was the election of yet another Marcos in the Philippines. The name Marcos stands for infamy and for rapacious greed. The Marcos family, over the generations, has looted the Philippines of its wealth and then sold off the assets to the highest bidder. China must be delighted with that outcome. No longer is it going to be challenged on building a military island in the South China Sea, nor is it going to be challenged by the severely outgunned Philippine navy in the South China Sea. This is simply a terrific outcome, as far as China is concerned. The fourth incident just this week was that I had a conversation with someone who everyone in this chamber would know, and his comment was, “China does not regard Canada as a serious player.” This was in the context of how we take care of our own security, and the multiplicity of covert and overt intrusions into Canadian society and life by the Government of China. Regarding the fifth incident, members will know that last week there was an opportunity to speak with the governments in exile from Tibet. Some members here might even have Tibetan interns working with them. Does anyone actually believe that Tibet is a free and independent country? That is perfectly the way the Chinese government likes it. Sixth, it is my intention next week to initiate debate on Bill S-211, which was alluded to by my friend. The simple summary of the bill is that Canadian companies and governments would have to examine their supply chains and certify they are free of forced labour. This week, I was asked by one of my colleagues about solar panels being sold in Canada, and whether either the panels or components were infected by slavery. The concerning answer is that there is a strong likelihood they were. The day before that, I was in a conversation with one of Canada's leading journalists, and he asserted that 90% of the cotton products coming out of Xinjiang are produced by slaves, likely Uighurs. That was just my week. That is the concern that Canadians are expressing to me in various forms. I would also commend to the House's attention a book I just finished by Peter Frankopan, a professor from Oxford, called The New Silk Roads. In it, the author outlines all of the initiatives around the world the Chinese government has taken with respect to the new silk roads. The fly cover says: All roads used to lead to Rome. Today they lead to Beijing.... In the age of Brexit and Trump, the West is buffeted by the tides of isolationism and fragmentation. Yet to the East, this is a moment of optimism as a new network of relationships takes shape along ancient trade routes. It is a very clear-eyed analysis of what is going on in the world, literally under our noses. We naturally look to our American colleagues for leadership, but as many have rightly pointed out, the American leadership is fractured along partisan lines and self-consumed by difficulties within its political orbit. Some of the deals that have been consummated under the silk road initiative have been disastrous for many other countries. One of the classic examples of this is Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was dominated by the greedy and kleptocratic government run by the Rajapaksa family, which indebted the nation through vanity projects and then was forced to sell off the country's assets at discounted prices. As I wind up, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this debate forward. It is a serious debate, and it is something that needs to take place. I therefore will be supporting the idea of a standing committee.

1096 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

May/12/22 4:41:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood and say to him that, earlier, I misspoke when I said that he was wrong. What he said was false, but not what he thought, of course. I want to clarify the situation. It is the opposite of what was suggested. That happens sometimes. At the end of his speech, the member said that he agreed with the principle behind the motion. I would like to know if he will be supporting it.

85 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

May/12/22 4:41:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I should probably tell my whip before I tell the member. Brian Mulroney used to say there is no more important relationship that a prime minister has to manage than the Canada-U.S. relationship. Times have changed. In my view, frankly, there is no greater relationship that the Parliament of Canada, and indeed the Government of Canada, has to manage than the relationship with China, the ascendant world power. Therefore, I will be supporting the motion.

79 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/12/22 4:42:47 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am glad to stand as I represent Nunavut. Since I was elected in September I have been surprised with how many foreign interference issues we have had to deal with. I would like to ask the member if he would commit to having the government bring legislation forward to combat foreign interference from China and other state parties here in Canada.

63 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

May/12/22 4:43:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an attractive idea. It has been pursued in other countries. In principle, I would support it. I do not know how it would play out in practice. While I am on my feet, I would like to talk about the north and the critical importance that the rangers play in the assertion of our sovereignty in the north. It is not only a military establishing of presence, but also the building of the infrastructure in the north in order to facilitate the extension of our sovereignty. The biggest challenge to our sovereignty is the government of China.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

May/12/22 4:44:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. He is very articulate and knows a lot about this issue. I appreciate his support for this motion to have a China-Canada committee set up again. I think that is what he said in his closing remarks, and if not, he can correct me on that. I am looking at all of the things the member said were important to be dealt with, and I know the other committees are so busy. I am on the natural resources committee myself. There are a lot of issues around natural resources today, as well. China has control of a greater chunk of those in the world than any other nation. We do as well, and it may impact us in regard to being able to get the critical minerals we need for some of the EV situations we are looking at. What are the member's feelings in regard to having discussions there, because we are already tied up in natural resources committee on the transition issues?

177 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

May/12/22 4:45:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I chair the national defence committee. We have just done a threat analysis study. I think it will be an excellent report. However, we were distracted. The distraction was, naturally, to Ukraine, Europe and NATO. The threat of the Indo-Pacific was not dealt with nearly as well as it should have been. I am assuming that your committee is much like our committee, challenged for time and challenged for resources, and not able to deal coherently with some pretty important issues. That is the reason that I think this is not a bad idea.

97 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/12/22 4:46:24 p.m.
Watch

Again, I want to remind the member that he is to address all questions and comments through the Chair. I do not have a committee, so I know he was not addressing it directly to me. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Avalon.

43 words

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

May/12/22 4:46:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will focus my remarks on Canada's engagement with Taiwan. The connections between Canada and Taiwan are very deep and strong. Our two societies share a commitment to democratic values and a respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. The approximately 60,000 Canadians who live in Taiwan today comprise the fourth-largest Canadian diaspora community in the world. Daily direct flights between Vancouver and Taipei have helped to deepen these people-to-people ties. When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, Taiwan was among the first to donate masks to Canada. The economic relationship between Canada and Taiwan is also thriving. Canada's two-way merchandise trade with Taiwan totals $10.2 billion in 2021, up 38.1% from $7.4 billion in 2020. In 2021, Taiwan was Canada's 11th-largest merchandise trading partner and fifth-largest trading partner in Asia. Taiwan is a critical link in global supply chains, particularly for chip manufacturing and international shipping. To strengthen trade, Canada and Taiwan co-operate through select multilateral organizations, including APEC and the WTO. To advance economic people-to-people and cultural co-operation, senior representatives from both sides participate in the Canada-Taiwan Economic Consultations, an annual meeting. During the most recent meeting, our representatives discussed a broad range of topics related to trade and investment, such as the green economy, supply chain security, intellectual property, access to agricultural markets and greater collaboration on science, technology and innovation. Canada and Taiwan, along with Australia and New Zealand, recently negotiated the indigenous peoples economic and trade co-operation agreement. The arrangement establishes a framework to identify and remove the barriers that hinder the economic empowerment of indigenous peoples. Earlier this year, Canada and Taiwan announced their intention to hold exploratory discussions toward a possible foreign investment promotion and protection arrangement, also known as FIPA. Canada is keen to pursue trade, innovation and investment relations with Taiwan, consistent with our long-standing policy. Over the past two decades, Taiwan was able to participate in select UN specialized agencies as an observer or as a special guest. More recently, however, Taiwan has been actively excluded from key international agencies and events. This exclusion has negative impacts not only on the 24 million people of Taiwan, but also on the global community. For instance, Taiwan continues to be excluded from the World Health Assembly, even though the island has much to contribute to global pandemic efforts. The international community faces an unprecedented number of complex issues, from climate change to public health to environmental degradation and more. Collaboration among all partners offers our best hope for resolving these issues. Where a technical imperative exists, we must enable meaningful contributions from all stakeholders. It is on this basis that Canada supports Taiwan's meaningful participation in relevant global discussions, including in the secure skies initiative led by Transport Canada. Taiwan should participate meaningfully in international organizations whenever there is a practical imperative to do so, and whenever Taiwan's absence is detrimental to global interests. Consider, for instance, the question of Taiwan's ongoing exclusion from the World Health Assembly, the WHA. During the pandemic, it is clear that the exclusion of Taiwan from the WHA has been detrimental to global efforts to track and combat COVID-19. The pandemic provides a practical imperative for Taiwan's inclusion as an observer. In recent months, we have observed tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Canada has communicated directly to the Chinese authorities its concerns about destabilizing military actions across the strait while reiterating Canada's strong support for constructive efforts that contribute to peace and stability in the region. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has discussed this situation with many of our allies and is working with our like-minded partners to support the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific as a whole. Additionally, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is currently seized of this issue and is scheduled to meet today to hear testimony on the situation in the Taiwan Strait. To be clear, we remain committed to advancing our interests with Taiwan within the framework of Canada's long-standing policy. Canadian engagement with Taiwan is multi-faceted and has, on its own merits, an important role to play in advancing Canadian interests. The value of this engagement between our two societies goes beyond the cross-strait security question. During the last two decades, China has emerged as an economic powerhouse and a critical partner and stakeholder across a range of pressing issues of global concern. China's inclusion is necessary toward overcoming the daunting global challenges, including climate change, pandemic management and global economic recovery, as well as international security. It is in our interests to remain committed to a long-term, constructive and mature relationship with China. We will continue to seek frank but respectful dialogue and co-operation where it makes sense to do so, but also to defend and promote values we have always stood for. Everyone benefits when we work together to identify mutual interests and negotiate creative arrangements that serve these interests. Canada engages both sides of the Taiwan Strait to advance complementary interests, respect for rights and freedoms, and the rule of law. This approach has informed the approach of successive governments for more than five decades and will continue to do so well into the future. As a progressive democracy, Taiwan demonstrates that Confucian values can coexist effectively with the protection of individual rights and freedoms, including those of women, the LGBTQ+ community and indigenous peoples. At the same time, Taiwan's strengths in semiconductors, biotechnology and information technology have supported its dynamic, export-driven economy and contributed to global growth. Canada will continue to pursue Taiwan's meaningful participation where its presence provides important contributions to the public good. Finally, with respect to the committee proposed in this motion, there are several existing parliamentary committees where bilateral relations issues can be and have been raised. At the top of the list is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which already this year has undertaken thorough and constructive studies and briefings on China-related issues, including the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region and Tibet. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the committee is currently studying the situation in the Taiwan Strait. The parliamentary committees already in place are the right venues for studying these topics, and it is unfortunate that the Conservatives are proposing a motion that will at best lead to a duplication of work.

1095 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/12/22 4:55:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to the member's final comments, I serve on the foreign affairs committee and we are concurrently trying to study the issue of Taiwan, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the question of global vaccine equity. All three are critical points of global crisis. We are putting forward the humble suggestion that the special committee on Canada-China relations, which was a multidisciplinary committee looking at issues of foreign policy, security and a broad range of other issues, be allowed to continue its work. It is disappointing to see the Liberal members oppose it. I want to ask the member a specific question about Taiwan, the primary subject of his remarks. At the transport committee, my colleague from Thornhill put forward a motion calling for the full participation of Taiwan in ICAO, and the Liberals proposed an amendment to say they do not want “full” participation but “meaningful” participation, which is ostensibly something short of full participation. The member spoke a lot about meaningful participation, but I think the public will notice that that is different from saying Taiwan should have full participation and be able to participate on an equal basis. Could the member clarify whether he supports the full participation of Taiwan in international organizations?

213 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 70