Hon. Alice Wong, P.C.

On November 17, 2020, Alice Wong delivered a speech to the House of Commons in response to an opposition motion on Canada-China relations:

That, given that:
(i) the People’s Republic of China, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, is threatening Canada’s national interest and its values, including Canadians of Chinese origin within Canada’s borders,
(ii) it is essential that Canada have a strong and principled foreign policy backed by action in concert with its allies,

the House call upon the government to:
(a) make a decision on Huawei’s involvement in Canada’s 5G network within 30 days of the adoption of this motion; and
(b) develop a robust plan, as Australia has done, to combat China’s growing foreign operations here in Canada and its increasing intimidation of Canadians living in Canada, and table it within 30 days of the adoption of this motion.

The following is a transcript:

Hon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC):
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by letting you know I am splitting my time with my fantastic colleague, the member for Lethbridge.

Most of my comments are concerned with the last paragraph of the motion, which I will address first. I would like to give members a bit of background about myself. I have had the privilege of accompanying former Prime Minister Stephen Harper to China three times to meet Chinese leaders and Canadians who were working or doing business in China. Those visits were very fruitful. While we were developing a closer bilateral relationship, the Harper government never hesitated to bring up issues or concerns in a respectful way.

Before joining politics, I worked as a volunteer in Chinese universities training teachers and students in entrepreneurship. I also brought international aid from Canada to remote and second-tier cities to help the poor and needy. My field experiences in China enriched me with an understanding of the people, the culture and the places I visited across China where my parents were originally from.

I represent Richmond Centre. According to the 2016 census, provided by Statistics Canada, my electoral district contains the second largest population of people of Chinese ethnic origin in the nation. It is very important and always important in any debate to distinguish between ethnicity and nationality. While my ethnic origin is Chinese, my nationality is one of being a very proud Canadian. To be exact, I was born British because I was born in Hong Kong when it was still a British colony. I started with a British passport when I came over as an immigrant over 40 years ago. Of course, I am now a proud Canadian.

While some ethnic origins are linked to a single country, many are linked to multiple countries. For instance, many of the ethnic Chinese in Richmond came from the People’s Republic of China. A good number came from Hong Kong when it was still a British colony. Others came from the Republic of China, otherwise known as Taiwan. Let us not forget those who came from China in the 18th century to build the Canada Pacific Railway and their descendants who stayed in Canada.

Finally, we have a significant number of people born in Canada, informally known as CBC, which is not the broadcasting company, but Canadian-born Chinese. There are also other ethnic Chinese immigrants who came from Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and so on. Many came here to become Canadians, including myself.

My duties as a member of Parliament are focused around the Canadians who make up Richmond Centre and the issues that concern them first and foremost. I am continually grateful for them sending me to Parliament to be their voice, and it is their concerns that I have in mind. Many, if not a majority, of those residing in Richmond are immigrants. It is understandable that affairs in their place of origin get brought up in discussions. They typically have family members abroad and, sometimes, business interests and ties.

While every member of Parliament has their own policies regarding overseas events, or even those across the U.S. border, mine has been to focus my energy on the concerns of Richmond.

Many of my constituents came from Hong Kong, both before and after the July 1, 1997, handover as per the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Over the past year, some have written to me about the domestic state of affairs with protests regarding democratic freedoms in the Special Administrative Region. Indeed, with China’s imposition of the national security law on Hong Kong, we have seen predictable consequences: jailing of those who dare to speak against the government and, most recently, the expulsion of democracy-supporting legislators in the legislative council. Perhaps most important has been a chilling of free speech: one of the most important elements of a functioning democracy. To those non-Canadian Hong Kongers who are interested in making a life for themselves in our great country, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has moved a bit forward in this direction, and my colleagues and I will encourage further progress.

There are numerous other stories involving Canadians who are jailed in China. The two Michaels, Kovrig and Spavor, are well known. Lesser known is the case of John Chang and Allison Lu, two Canadians who operate Lulu Island Winery in Richmond and have been detained in China since 2016 for economic reasons. As early as 2017, I brought their challenge in China to the attention of the Liberal government, but nothing seems to have been done. I bring this up because China’s operations are international and affect Canadians domestically and abroad. Canada has limited power to influence affairs overseas. Given this, we must protect Canadians on Canadian soil to the extent possible, as it is clear we are not well equipped to protect Canadians abroad.

In Richmond, we also have a large population of immigrants from mainland China who wish to make better lives for themselves in Canada. Many have become Canadian citizens and, because China does not recognize dual citizenship, they gave up their Chinese nationality in the process. However, this does not cut their links to China as most have relatives up, down and across the family tree still living on the mainland. There are many stories involving coordinated Chinese state operations on Canadian soil and in other western democracies. One of these operations is the so-called United Front, which facilitates state coordination of foreign associations that consist of mainland Chinese-connected immigrants.

Another issue of foreign influence is the impact of industrial espionage. The other part of this motion talks about Huawei, but one does not need to look very far to read stories about technology being taken away from Nortel by Huawei, which used to be a Canadian contract manufacturer for Nortel. In a different age, we could build a Canadian telecommunications network with purely Canadian technology, but no more.

The most disturbing issue on an individual level is how democracy is threatened by the oppression of speech. It is very likely that any immigrant of Chinese descent who has any connection to China will be under the watchful eye of the Chinese Communist Party. If there is anything in the open that opposes the interests of China or causes embarrassment for the Communist Party, there are known examples of family members in mainland China receiving a knock on the door from the police instructing the offender to stop, or else. Both in Hong Kong and around the world, this again has a chilling effect on open and free speech.

For Canadians, especially those in Richmond, who came to Canada to enjoy our democratic freedoms, this intimidation—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):
Unfortunately, the member’s time is up. She will be able to add through questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the member and I share something in common. We not only have an interest in the very important debate taking place right now, but we also have a very strong love and passion for the Philippines.

One of the things I wanted to bring up to my colleague is that there is no doubt that, on all sides of the House, we recognize the many issues between Canada and China. When we look at resolution, one of the things we suggested is that opposition members look at ways in which maybe they would be open to amendments dealing with the 30-day issue.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts on the fixation of why it is felt we need to go with the 30 days.

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I worked on many things and, as he mentioned earlier, in the Filipino Canada friendship group.

Allow me to finish the last part of my speech regarding Huawei, because that is probably exactly what the parliamentary secretary wants to comment on. While I am not as savvy with technology as some of the younger members in this chamber, I am still a keen user of mobile devices. Needless to say, I believe the security of mobile communications, including who we communicate with, should be kept within Canadian borders if at all possible.

The decision to involve Huawei in our next-generation mobile networks has undoubtedly been studied for greater certainty. This decision should be made known so providers can better prepare. The ambiguous approach currently taken by the Prime Minister is not helping.

I understand the parliamentary secretary is asking about the timeline. It is my understanding that, yes, we are open to amendments on—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):
I have to interrupt to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Boudrias (Terrebonne, BQ):
Madam Speaker, it is really interesting that the House is finally dealing with this national security issue, which is a major concern in the world in which we live.

One thing is for certain, our society today does not have enough technical and technological resources to counter any type of foreign influence, whatever it may be. Here we are talking about competition and international markets again when, in the circumstances, Canada should act on national security grounds.

As I said earlier in the House, I think that our society could quickly come up with a design and construction plan to keep our aerospace industry going and produce everything we need. We are talking here about satellites and relay antennas for telecommunications.

I do not understand why our government does not take the bull by the horns and force an existing industry to remedy a technical situation that is threatening national security. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that because her party moved this very worthwhile motion this morning.

[English]

Hon. Alice Wong:
Madam Speaker, the member is definitely right. It took the government two years even to come up with an answer to look at this very challenging issue. Some of my technical friends told me that by the time the government makes a decision it will no longer be 5G. It could be 6G technology, or even higher.

Canada will fall behind if the government does not make up its mind and do something really concrete to help our providers move on for a better future and for our future generations.

Subsequent Errata to speech:

The reference to Chinese immigrants to build the Canadian Pacific Railway occurred in the 1800s, not the 18th century.

Filed under: Parliament, Video