44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 12, 2022 10:00AM
- May/12/22 10:23:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs is an appropriate place to study Canada-China relations. The challenge is that that committee is seized with so many other issues. It is seized with the issue of the COVAX facility, for vaccines for developing countries. It is seized with the issue of Ukraine. It is seized with so many other issues. This is the reason why we established the Special Committee on Afghanistan, because the foreign affairs committee is seized with so many other issues, and it is why we should be establishing a special committee on Canada-China relations.
The relationship between Canada and China is so broad and multi-faceted, particularly in light of what has happened in recent years, that we need a special committee to continue to further the study. I would point out that in the 43rd Parliament, the amount of media attention that the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations received is an indication of the need to re-establish this committee in the 44th Parliament.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:25:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
The Canada-China relationship is a broad one. There are many issues between our two countries, particularly with respect to economic matters. There is no question that we must pressure the government to develop a policy on companies such as Huawei.
For four years now, the government has been saying it will present a policy on Huawei. However, a decision has yet to be made. That is another reason to establish a special committee on Canada-China relations.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:28:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians of Chinese descent are great contributors to Canada and are part of an ancient heritage and civilization that has contributed much to humanity. I have a thriving Chinese Canadian community at home, which has been very kind to me over the years.
As the shadow defence minister, it is my job to critique the government's defence policy and posture, with the goal of making national security more sound and stronger. This is very close to my heart as the former associate minister of national defence.
When I look at China as a strategic player on the global stage, I can visualize its progress over time from what westerners considered a backward, developing state to now a great power, a superpower on the rise. It is a non-status quo power, in that it has an interest in carving out a sphere of influence for itself, not just in the Indo-Pacific but also around the globe. In so doing, it brings itself into conflict with other great powers, like the United States. It is time for the Canadian government to take seriously the threats that the Beijing communist leadership poses to Canada's national interests and security, as well as our values.
On July 24, 2019, China published its first defence white paper in four years, “China's National Defence in the New Era”. The document outlines the strategic guidance for the People's Liberation Army. The white paper commences with a review of how China sees the global security environment. In China's view, there has been a redistribution of power in the international system, in that there is no one superpower anymore and this has led to a multipolar system. This trend toward multipolarity and the decline of the world's only superpower, the United States, has led to greater instability and strategic competition. The world is no longer “a tranquil place”.
Beijing views the United States as the biggest threat to international stability and security. The white paper warns about American “growing hegemonism, power politics, unilateralism”, but the document does not stop at examining the U.S. It also looks at U.S. allies and other significant states in the world. It notes that “NATO has continued its enlargement, stepped up military deployment in Central and Eastern Europe and conducted frequent military exercises.” As well, it notes that “Russia is strengthening its nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities for strategic containment and striving to safeguard its strategic security space and interests”. Furthermore, it points out that “[t]he European Union is accelerating its security and defense integration to be more independent in its own security”.
The document is transparent in its statement that the goal of Chinese defence policy is countering the U.S. and replacing it as the world's superpower. China singles out those states that it sees as U.S. allies and partners in disrupting the region, particularly South Korea, Japan and Australia. The document also singles out Australia for its military alliance with the U.S. and its military engagement in the Asia-Pacific region as “seeking a bigger role in security affairs”. Not surprisingly, the document claims that Chinese policy in the Asia-Pacific region has been a resounding success and suggests a China-led security architecture for the future. It seems that Beijing views the Asia-Pacific region in almost the same manner as imperial Japan did immediately before and during World War II.
The white paper asserts that the fundamental goal of national defence in this new era is to deter and resist aggression; safeguard national political security, the people's security and social stability; oppose and contain Taiwan independence; crack down on proponents of separatist movements, such as Tibet independence and the creation of East Turkestan; and safeguard national sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity and security. Other strategic national security objectives include safeguarding China's maritime rights and interests and its security interests in outer space, electromagnetic space and cyberspace, as well as safeguarding China's overseas interests and supporting the sustainable development of the country.
The white paper notes that the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, which are also claimed by China, are inalienable parts of the Chinese territory. It vows that Beijing will defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity via patrols in the waters near the disputed islands. Other states that claim parts of the South China Sea are told that the sea is also an inalienable part of China.
The white paper states:
China exercises its national sovereignty to build infrastructure and deploy necessary defensive capabilities on the islands and reefs in the South China Sea....
With regard to Taiwan, the document uses plain language not seen in previous defence white papers. It states that:
To solve the Taiwan question and achieve complete reunification of the country is in the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation and essential to realizing national rejuvenation. China adheres to the principles of “peaceful reunification”, and “one country, two systems”, promotes peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, and advances peaceful reunification....
This is what it says.
The linchpin of Beijing's political objectives is the People's Liberation Army. China has the world's largest military machine, with more than 2 million soldiers, which can be turned against an adversary like Taiwan at any time and with little warning. China continues to have organizational and doctrinal issues that undermine its effectiveness.
The People's Liberation Army has also not seen real combat since its border war with Vietnam in 1979 and skirmishes with India in the Himalayas. The People's Liberation Army, or PLA, has an increasingly modern military featuring strategic nuclear and conventional rockets and ground, sea and air forces.
In terms of the strategic nuclear deterrent, China has 100 rail-based ICBMs that may be targeted on the U.S. right now, and has developed two new fields of some 250 silos for its reportedly growing nuclear arsenal. It is important to note that the increase in the Chinese nuclear strategic deterrent tends to move away from its past minimalist approach to nuclear counterstrike, which it has reportedly had for decades. It suggests that Beijing is about to drop all pretenses of a no-first-use policy.
In August 2021, China reportedly tested at least one nuclear-capable HGV that was launched from a Long March 2C rocket and orbited the earth before it attacked its intended target. The HGV travels at an extremely high speed to its target: above Mach 5. It is manoeuvrable, unlike a ballistic warhead on a parabolic path, and it may strike its target with little or no warning almost anywhere on the globe.
Fractional orbital bombardment systems, FOBS, are designed to place nuclear warheads into a fractional orbit from the southern hemisphere where they would likely go undetected, instead of launching them by a ballistic missile over the North Pole. The advantage of FOBS is that they avoid the North American Aerospace Defense Command. NORAD's constellation of radar stations looks out into the Arctic space, and satellites are positioned to look at the northern hemisphere, rather than to look south. As well, the FOBS have no range limit, are incredibly fast and have no predictable path to give away their target.
The Communist Party of China has at its disposal an army of about 975,000 soldiers to defend Chinese interests, with enormous reserves potential and important paramilitary forces of around 660,000 soldiers. Beijing now has the world's largest navy, with 250,000 sailors and 355 warships that it can focus on the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
The PLA navy has four modern amphibious dock vessels and two amphibious helicopter assault ships. The navy has two aircraft carriers, one cruiser, 32 destroyers, 49 frigates, and about 125 smaller corvettes and missile craft of various capabilities. It has a submarine force of nuclear-powered ballistic missile and hunter-killer boats along with many conventionally powered subs. The two operational aircraft carriers are of modest capability, with a larger third carrier under construction. However, the surface combatants are peers or near-peers to their western counterparts.
For Canada, it is important to remember that China is interested in our Arctic region and the riches there, as well as the prospect of a sheltered area where its nuclear-powered ballistic missile subs might hide during possible tensions with either the U.S. or Russia. Chinese state media have reportedly called the Northwest Passage a golden waterway for future trade. To Denmark's concern, Beijing has expressed an interest in Greenland.
In conclusion, Canada ignores China's growing global interests and its military might at our peril. We have to step up, join our allies in Quad and AUKUS and vote for this committee to reconvene and do some very good work.
1493 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:40:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have heard that party, time and again, cite that the targeting of an individual nation, such as Israel, was cause for anti-Semitism, yet it seems that party has a fixation on China. In fact, yesterday it was a Conservative MP who blocked a very basic motion to condemn the murder of a journalist in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Why does the Conservative Party seem to have a double standard when it comes to upholding international law and basic human rights?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:43:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope that I can get a question from the member for Hamilton Centre, given his passion in this particular debate.
I am pleased to rise today in the House to address the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. My remarks today will focus on the bilateral relations between China and Canada, as well as on China in the context of the development of our government's Indo-Pacific strategy.
The relationship between Canada and China dates back to the early days of the history of our country. As the motion highlights, Canadians of Chinese descent have made immeasurable contributions to Canada and are interwoven into the fabric of our society. Today, nearly two million residents of Canada are of Chinese origin and form one of the largest groups among Canada's immigrant population. In many ways, these people-to-people ties represent the closest link between our two countries.
International trade is another important aspect of our relationship with China. China is Canada's third-largest merchandise export market. With the world's largest population and a growing middle class, China offers Canadian exporters important opportunities, as well as ongoing challenges in certain sectors.
There can be no doubt that China has changed significantly in recent decades. It has benefited selectively from a rules-based international order in pursuing its economic rise. China seems determined to reshape the international order to meet its own needs, and its aggressive actions in the South China Sea and East China Sea threaten regional and global stability.
The mounting evidence of China's disrespect for basic human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of religion, including the treatment of Tibetans, Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in China, who continue to face repression, forced labour and discrimination, and national security law imposed on the people of Hong Kong in 2020, are all deeply troubling and at odds with Canadian values and interests. In response to these actions, Canada and other countries must continue to speak up and challenge China. We cannot allow any country, regardless of its size, to disregard human rights. At the same time, if we hope to make progress on global issues such as climate change, the environment and public health, we must find ways to engage and collaborate with China.
Our government is prioritizing a comprehensive approach to the Indo-Pacific region that will guide our foreign policy for the next decade. This is not just a strategy for one region of the world, but a strategy for Canada that will impact our peace and prosperity for decades to come. No region will be more important to Canada's interests than the Indo-Pacific.
As the prosperity, security and well-being of Canadians become increasingly linked to the Indo-Pacific region, Canada is deepening our partnerships and expanding our engagement in the region. Canada must engage in the Indo-Pacific with a comprehensive, responsive and integrated approach. It must be one that continues to advance trade and economic objectives while protecting Canada's national security and other security interests, defending a rules-based international order, advancing sustainable development goals and, of course, fighting climate change.
Canada's evolving policy for advancing our interests in China is inseparable from, and a critical piece within, our approach in the broader region. We must continue diversifying into the broader Indo-Pacific, and our relations with China are but one part of the Indo-Pacific strategy under development by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
As we all know, our bilateral relations have suffered from China's use of coercive diplomacy. This has led Canada to reflect on and assess China's sincerity in constructively resolving issues. We are taking a step-by-step approach to assessing Chinese intentions and managing our interests in China.
While our government acknowledges the complexity of Canada-China relations, we will continue to co-operate, when it makes sense to do so, on global issues and shared interests. We will challenge the Chinese government's violation of international rules and norms, compete with authoritarian approaches by advancing those that support democracy, transparency and accountability, and coexist with the most populous nation on earth.
As part of this approach, on April 5, the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke with the People's Republic of China's state councillor and foreign affairs minister, Wang Yi. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been clear that Canada will continue to stand for and raise human rights concerns, and she reiterated Canada's expectations towards China in resolving outstanding bilateral issues. The minister also emphasized the need for China to play a constructive role to stop the war in Ukraine, as the nations of the world were watching Chinese actions on this file very closely. The minister has also highlighted the many areas on which both countries can work together, such as climate change, the environment and global health.
In conclusion, bilateral relations can be complex and dynamic, but our national interests and long-standing Canadian values are a constant. Canada and China will continue to have deep people-to-people ties and share many economic, social and cultural interests, which will continue to enrich the fabric of both our societies. Our government continues to advance Canada's interests by managing relations with China through a principled approach, and we will be steadfast and firm in upholding Canadian values and interests.
I want to end by addressing the proposal to create a new special committee. There are already several existing parliamentary committees where bilateral relations issues can be and have been raised. At the top of this list is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which has, already this year, undertaken a thorough and constructive study of China-related matters. The foreign affairs committee remains best placed to study these matters, and I am concerned that my colleague is simply creating a vehicle to duplicate its work with this proposal.
997 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:57:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the speech by the member for Kingston and the Islands there may be some disinformation when it comes to being measured, but the misinformation from the member for Timmins—James Bay is completely false.
The situation that we are faced with today in defence around the world is probably one of the major reasons, as pointed out by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, that committees are already busy. This is an emergency. When there are references to interference in elections and a committee is not taking the time to look at that, does the member not think that would warrant having a committee to look into this special situation with China?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:59:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this feels a bit like Back to the Future or Groundhog Day, as we keep reliving the same thing over and over again. Of course we have always been in favour of creating a committee to examine the relationship between the People's Republic of China and Canada. It is no different today; we have not changed our minds. We believe it is still relevant to have a committee to take a closer look specifically at this matter.
There is no denying that the People's Republic of China is a military, political, and economic superpower. It was a real Eldorado for the Liberal government of the 1990s. Everyone said we should relocate all our businesses to China and take advantage of China's cheap labour. By doing business with China, we would eventually help raise the standard of living there, which would inevitably advance democracy and help it blossom like a flower in the spring.
A few decades on, we have become a little disillusioned with the logic and narrative that the Liberal government of the day was trying to impose. Nevertheless, the fact remains that China is an undisputed economic power.
We need to recognize that relations between the People's Republic of China and Canada were excellent for decades. We can think of the time when Canada provided wheat to contribute to famine relief in the People's Republic of China or the influence Dr. Bethune had during the Chinese revolution. There is also the fact that former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was among the first western heads of state to establish relations with the People's Republic of China.
Relations between our countries were always extremely positive until they faltered significantly with the request to extradite Meng Wanzhou, followed by the illegal detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. I thought it was important at that point to take a look at what could have happened and how we might try to restore relations.
Then something happened that had me completely shocked. I was floored. We came to realize that the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations was not the least bit interested in finding solutions to improve relations with the People's Republic of China. It had become a partisan political tool to try to put the government in a tough spot. I will not get into details because we will probably have an opportunity to come back to it. The whole thing was abruptly interrupted when an entirely unnecessary election was called unexpectedly last fall.
In the meantime, thanks to the election of a new government in Washington, a solution was found that, although somewhat questionable, made it possible to resolve the problem of the U.S. request to extradite Meng Wanzhou, which then led to the almost immediate release of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig.
After the election results were announced, we came back to the House and, lo and behold, the Conservatives decided that they needed a new toy, a new tool with which to play partisan politics. All of a sudden, now that the two Michaels had been released, they felt there was no longer a need for the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Now, the Conservatives wanted a special committee to examine the disastrous Afghanistan evacuation. Our Conservative friends were convinced that this would win them political points. They no longer needed the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations at that time.
We criticized the fact that the Conservatives were abandoning the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Obviously, we were not against creating the Special Committee on Afghanistan because, admittedly, some missteps and bad decisions were made, and we needed to try to identify any problems in advance just in case we should ever find ourselves in another such situation.
Incidentally, the late premier Jacques Parizeau often said that we must never underestimate the federal government's ability to disappoint us. In this case, it seems as though the federal government never learns from past lessons. Although we have to hope that the federal government will learn from what happened in Afghanistan, I must admit that it may disappoint us again this time.
In any event, we put pressure on the government to bring back the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. However, for their own reasons, the Conservatives were not ready for the committee to be reinstated at that time. I will let my colleagues speak to the reasons why they may not have wanted that committee to be re-established.
Let us see where we are this morning. The Special Committee on Afghanistan is wrapping up its work. The Conservatives' new political toy or tool will soon be a thing of the past. What issue has become their new political football? They have suddenly proposed a special committee on the relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China. That is rather extraordinary.
Our Conservative friends did not think it would be useful to bring back the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations even though the world has changed profoundly in the months since the election, due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Now their priority is suddenly to reinstate the committee, so what made them change their minds?
I want to make it clear to my colleagues that we agree. We have always believed that this committee served a purpose. However, I sincerely wonder about why our Conservative friends are bringing this proposal forward now. It was relevant after the election, but they were not at all interested. Suddenly, now that Russia has invaded Ukraine, they find it relevant again, with the Special Committee on Afghanistan a few weeks away from wrapping up.
I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I think that if someone suspected partisan motives were behind this proposal, they might be right. In any case, we must acknowledge that it certainly seems that way. However, as I have said from the beginning, even though I have serious doubts that our Conservative friends' motives are honourable, we will vote in favour of this motion because we believe and always have believed that this committee served a purpose.
I would now like to take some time to talk about the wording of the motion moved by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, whom I salute. It is always a pleasure to work with him.
I want to draw my colleagues' attention to one of the points early in the motion: “(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”. I think we can essentially all agree on that one.
I think the next line is worthy of a little commentary. It states, “(iv) that authoritarian states, including the People's Republic of China, increasingly pose a threat to the rules-based international order”. The Conservatives seem to have discovered that there are authoritarian states in the world. It may come as a shock to some, but less than half of our fellow humans on this planet live in democracies.
Given Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the People's Republic of China's threats against Taiwan, I understand this sudden desire to highlight the fact that “authoritarian states, including the People's Republic of China, increasingly pose a threat to the rules-based international order”, but I simply want to point out that this is not new.
Authoritarian states are not new. Because of some kind of agreement or tacit alliance between the two countries, the authoritarian states of Russia and the People's Republic of China may constitute a threat to the international order established after the Second World War.
I remind members that when the United Nations was created, we appointed the five largest powers at the time to maintain balance within the international system. The invasion of Ukraine, however, has highlighted the limits of this system, as one of the five powers meant to help maintain international order has gone out of control.
We find ourselves in a situation where neither the People's Republic of China nor Russia are what one might call democratic states. It appears that they have decided to collaborate, and we fully understand the threat that poses to the world order as we knew it, until recently at least.
Let me digress for a moment to share another fascinating point. By invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin thought he would discourage all states from wanting to eventually join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. However, the exact opposite has happened. Do not forget that under Donald Trump's administration, President Macron described NATO as being virtually brain dead.
There were questions about the usefulness and relevance of NATO, but Vladimir Putin has made the organization relevant again—so much so that states that have traditionally been neutral for decades, such as Finland and Sweden, are now considering joining NATO. Vladimir Putin has pushed countries into NATO's arms by trying to prevent Ukraine from joining the organization.
Moreover, after Brexit, some European countries, such as Poland and Hungary, started questioning the point of the European Union. After the invasion of Ukraine, people stopped questioning whether the European Union was relevant or useful. In response to the Russian threat, the European Union, like NATO, closed ranks like never before.
We may agree with our colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills that this kind of tacit alliance between Russia and the People's Republic of China represents a significant threat to the international order as we knew it until very recently.
Even so, that does not take away from the problems we are seeing inside and outside the People's Republic of China as acknowledged in point (iv) of the motion. One example is the new silk road, China's move to establish itself as a force to be reckoned with in Africa and ultimately render former colonial powers, such as France, and even countries without a colonial past, such as Canada, irrelevant. Canada had a notable and noted presence in Africa for decades, but it literally missed the boat.
While China was investing heavily in Africa, Canada withdrew from that continent, especially under the influence of Stephen Harper's Conservative government. This opened Africa's doors to the Chinese. We missed the boat, and the Chinese are emerging as the power to be reckoned with in Africa. Russia is doing the same thing in Mali now. As the French pull out, the Russians are moving in. As point (iv) indicates, this contributes to a possible destabilisation of the international order.
I was talking a moment ago about the incredible and surprising solidarity shown by NATO and EU states in the face of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. We all thought about our friends in Taiwan, because we know that China is keeping a close eye on what is happening right now. Xi Jinping has made no secret of the fact that he would like to bring Taiwan back into the fold of mainland China. There have been concerns about the repercussions this would have.
At a reception in Taiwan's honour last night, it was noted that Taiwan is Canada's 11th largest trading partner, the fifth largest in Asia. This is significant. Taiwan is inextricably intertwined with the global economic system. However, if the People's Republic of China were to invade Taiwan, given the influence of Chinese banks on assets in Europe, would Europe be able to show the same level of solidarity in imposing sanctions on China, which is even more inextricably intertwined in the international economic system than Russia is?
What is happening right now is extremely concerning. It is not a matter of if the People's Republic of China will invade Taiwan but when, and the question is how the international community will be able to respond to this new transgression of international rules.
It is important to create a new committee on Canada-China relations. We think it appropriate to support this motion even though, once again, I highly doubt the good intentions of our Conservative friends, who moved with this motion at such an odd time, after Russia invaded Ukraine and a few days after the Special Committee on Afghanistan wrapped up its work, which did not give the Conservatives the political dividends they were hoping for. Now they are turning their attention to something else, and it seems that the political panacea for the Conservatives today is to reactivate the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
We will step up. We will do what we can to ensure that this committee does not become another partisan circus, and that we can lay the foundation for a better understanding and, we hope, better relations with the People's Republic of China, given the country's significance in the international system.
2168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 11:23:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my simple answer to my colleague is yes.
If we need to reconsider Canada's existing relations with the People's Republic of China, everything must be on the table and we will have to consider the positives and negatives of each issue.
We have to acknowledge that Canada's economic relationship with the People's Republic of China is quite deep. This became clear during the pandemic when supply chains were completely disrupted. That led some companies to reconsider their decision to use Chinese suppliers, which is a far cry from the El Dorado the Liberals promised in the 1990s. Everything must be on the table, and that includes economic relations.
If our friends in the New Democratic Party think it is worthwhile reviewing the agreement signed by Stephen Harper's Conservative government, that is fine, we will review it.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 11:24:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the answer is simple. Realistically, there are only so many resources, technically speaking, that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development can devote to addressing these topics and issues. Right now, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is getting a lot of attention. There are plenty of people and conflicts elsewhere in the world that have suddenly been forgotten because this conflict in Ukraine is getting all the attention and sucking up all the oxygen. There are only so many issues that can be addressed by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The same is true of the Standing Committee on Health, where it was decided to create a special committee to conduct a special study on medical assistance in dying.
In relation to the People's Republic of China, given its importance, we think that there must be—
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 11:55:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are absolutely so many possibilities for this committee. There are so many challenging issues that could come before this committee. That kind of study would be an incredible opportunity to look at the environmental impacts China is having on the world, but we need to look at our own impacts and to take stock by looking within and internally. We need to look at that impact and ensure that we are not only criticizing, but also moving forward in the ways we need to to ensure we all have a world left to defend.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 11:59:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
I rise today to speak to the proposal for the creation of a special committee on Canada-China relations. At the outset, I want to make it clear that we have no quarrel with the people of China, who have contributed so much to humanity. As a parliamentarian, I have the greatest respect and admiration for the Chinese people. Chinese-Canadians and Canadians of Chinese descent have helped build this country and have made it a far better place. Their contributions simply cannot be overstated. Our quarrel is with the Chinese Communist Party. In my comments today, when I speak of China, I want to be clear that I am, in all cases, speaking of the Chinese Communist Party.
Some members are asking why we need this committee specifically dedicated to Canada-China relations, why we need to study our relationship with China, and why the Conservatives are so concerned about the CCP. It is because Conservatives see an authoritarian China as the most consequential foreign policy relationship Canada will face in a generation. Through policies of repression and aggression, China has frightened countries near and far.
In recent years, China has expanded aggressively on multiple fronts. Wolf warrior diplomacy has replaced friendship diplomacy. Perceived slights from foreigners, no matter how small, are met with North Korean-style condemnation. A combative attitude has seeped into every part of China's foreign policy, and it is confronting many countries with their gravest threat in generations.
This threat is most apparent in maritime East Asia, where China is moving aggressively to cement its vast territorial claims. Beijing is churning out warships faster than any country has since World War II, and it has flooded Asian sea lanes with Chinese coast guard and fishing vessels. It has strung military outposts across the South China Sea, and dramatically increased its use of ship ramming and aerial interceptions to shove neighbours out of disputed areas. In the Taiwan Strait, Chinese military patrols, some involving a dozen warships and more than 50 combat aircraft, prowl the sea almost daily and simulate attacks on Taiwanese and U.S. targets.
China has gone on the economic offensive, as well.
Its latest five-year plan calls for dominating what Chinese officials call “choke points”, goods and services that other countries cannot live without, and then using that dominance, plus the lure of China's domestic market, to browbeat countries into concessions. China has become the dominant dispenser of overseas loans, loading up more than 150 countries with over $1 trillion in debt. It has massively subsidized strategic industries to gain a monopoly on hundreds of vital products, and it has stalled the hardware for digital networks in dozens of countries.
Armed with economic leverage, it has used coercion against more than a dozen countries over the past number of years. In many cases, the punishment has been disproportionate to the supposed crime. For example, China is slapping tariffs on many of Australia's exports after that country requested an international investigation into the origins of COVID-19, and here at home in Canada, when China wished to steamroll over our courts and the rule of law to free Meng Wanzhou, it banned Canadian canola. This is something that cost the industry over $2 billion. Later that same year, it suspended Canadian beef imports and placed sanctions against our colleague in this House, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.
China uses subsidies and espionage to help its firms dominate global markets and protects its domestic market with non-tariff barriers. It censors foreign ideas and companies on its own Internet, and freely accesses the global Internet to steal intellectual property and spread CCP propaganda. China has also become a potent anti-democratic force, and sells advanced tools of tyranny around the world.
By combining surveillance cameras with social media monitoring, artificial intelligence, biometrics, and speech and facial recognition technologies, the Chinese government has pioneered a system that allows dictators to watch citizens constantly and punish them instantly by blocking their access to finance, education, employment, telecommunications or travel. The apparatus is a despot's dream, and Chinese companies are already selling and operating aspects of it in more than 80 countries.
It is time for this government to take seriously the threats that the Beijing communist leadership poses to Canada's national interests and security, as well as our interests and values. For example, it is has been over a year, and the Liberal government has yet to release the Indo-Pacific strategy.
This committee is critical to examining all of these challenges and threats. It would be all-party and multidisciplinary, with the ability to look at all aspects of the Canada-China relationship, from complex consular cases to national security issues and from trade to global affairs, within the context of a committee that could go in camera with respect to sensitive information.
It is crucial that we uphold Canada's role in defending the rules-based international order. Canada must play its traditional role as a “linchpin”, as Winston Churchill described us, between Europe and America. We are a G7 nation. We are a NATO nation. We are a NORAD nation, and we are a Five Eyes nation. For a country small in population, Canada punches far above its weight when it comes to building relationships that are necessary to influencing our national interests, the freedom and liberty of others and the interests of the western alliance.
We do not need a three-day study at a standing committee. We need a specialized, multidisciplinary committee that has the ability to explore not just complex consular cases, but trade, defence, security and the actions and impacts of China. We need to grapple with the moral and ethical complexities of a bilateral trade relationship with a country that this Parliament has declared is committing genocide against the Uighur people.
China is a country that is quickly eroding the strong democracy of Hong Kong. It is a country that, just in February, signed a sweeping, long-term agreement with Russia that challenges the United States as a global power, challenges NATO as a cornerstone of international security and challenges liberal democracy as a model for the world. It is a country whose aspirations toward Taiwan may be emboldened by Mr. Putin's brutal war of tyranny in Ukraine. Also, we must be ever mindful of the threat of espionage in a digital world.
All this bellicosity and belligerence on the part of China is simply not working. In fact, it is only sparking an international backlash: one that our Prime Minister seems to have not fully comprehended. That is why we need a committee, independent of the PMO and executive branch of government, to study these issues and take a serious look at our relationship with China.
There has never been any doubt about what China wants, because Chinese leaders have declared the same objectives for decades: to keep the Chinese Communist Party in power, reabsorb Taiwan, control the East China Sea and South China Sea, and return China to its rightful place as the dominant power in Asia and the most powerful country in the world.
Competing with and containing China will be fraught with risks for Canada and its allies, but it might be the only way to avoid even greater dangers. That is why it is critical we reinstate the Canada-China committee so that all parliamentarians can study, discuss and carefully consider how best to protect our interests and our sovereignty.
I would like to close with a Chinese proverb: “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” I humbly ask my colleagues in the House to let us take that step together.
1316 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 12:09:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is plain and simple. The foreign affairs committee is seized with so many issues, and the relationship with China is so complex and multi-faceted, that we really do need another committee to study it. My friend referred to a couple of things, but when I think about the list, there is Huawei, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Uighurs, Tibet, the recent pact with Russia, trade issues, espionage and human rights. There are just simply not the resources or time at the foreign affairs committee to deal with these.
Around the discussion of the timing of the committee, that is a reasonable question. Let us see how the debate unfolds.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 12:12:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question touches on a couple of important areas. When it comes to food security and energy security in Europe, the world changed in February when Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine. That is a really important point. It should not be lost on any member of the House that food security affects countries everywhere, including China.
This is just another reason why we need to have this committee: so we can have a good analysis and understanding of the geopolitical implications of China's position on a whole host of issues.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 1:10:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what planet is my colleague from? China is one of the biggest economies in the world, and that has a direct impact on Canada's economy.
Let us not forget what happened when China blocked canola imports with billions of dollars at stake. How about hospitals and health care? Chinese nationals worked against Canada and Quebec to steal intellectual property and research. There are plenty of ways in which China has acted aggressively toward Canada, and we have to talk about them.
Let us not forget the environment either. Canada emits less than one-tenth of 1% of global pollution, whereas the Chinese are major polluters. Why would the Bloc want to hush that up and not talk about it? That makes no sense.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
