QUESTION PERIOD — Public Safety
Canada-China Relations
December 10, 2020
Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate, Senator Gold. On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that in 2018, Huawei worked with a Chinese artificial intelligence firm to test facial recognition software that could be used to detect Uighur Muslims and sent so-called “Uighur alerts” to government authorities.
This information was contained in an internal Huawei document, and both companies involved, Senator Gold, have acknowledged that the document exists, which has been since pulled from Huawei’s site, and it is real.
Senator Gold, your leader has put out a lengthy statement today in honour of International Human Rights Day, which is appropriate, but it is a statement that makes no mention whatsoever of the Uighur Muslims and their treatment by the Chinese regime. Senator Gold, why does your leader, your government, not seem to care about the human rights violations against Muslim Chinese people? The truth of the matter is, I say, they don’t care because we’ve seen no action for a number of months. What bearing does this obvious human rights violation have on your government’s never-ending security review of Huawei’s participation in Canada’s 5G network?
Senator Housakos, thank you for your question. Once again, I have to take issue, respectfully, with your characterization. The government cares enormously about the human rights conditions of the Uighurs. It has been clear in many contexts and, most importantly, directly with its Chinese counterparts.
Again, colleagues, it is facile and perhaps expedient to present these issues in black and white terms, to assume that the measure of a government’s engagement on such serious, complex issues with its allies and through all channels can be captured in whether or not there is a ringing denunciation in a particular press release. Alas, but happily, in a way — though not for the two Michaels whose fate remains of paramount concern, as does the fate of all those who suffer oppression and repression throughout the world — the work of foreign diplomacy, the work of engaging with our allies to achieve results in these cases, is complicated, difficult, protracted and often, as in so many other areas, needs to be done discreetly if it is to be effective.
The language your government uses in response to Uighur Muslim people in concentration camps is, in turn, complicated and difficult. The terms I would like to use, Senator Gold, are “disgusting” and “unacceptable.” Those are the terms. And if it is so, the government should take action.
Senator Gold, there was a lot of disturbing information contained in documents published yesterday concerning the government’s China policy. For one, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote to the Deputy Minister of National Defence in February 2019, “Canada does not want to be the partner that is reducing normal bilateral interactions. . . .”
It is most disturbing that a state that has essentially kidnapped Canadian citizens off the streets was described by our deputy minister as a “partner,” and it staggers the mind as to what “normal bilateral relations” might be in the face of a blatant policy of coercion by the Chinese state. The deputy minister goes on to say that his department would not support our military’s decision not to allow soldiers of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army to be here in Canada. It’s staggering to hear this, but then again Global Affairs seems to be willing to negotiate and talk with anyone, including tyrants.
My question for you, Senator Gold, is: Did this naive and blatant position of appeasement have the support of your government? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
This government is not engaged in a policy of appeasement. Must I repeat myself? I shall. This government has called out China to end its repression of the Uighurs. It has raised this issue directly with Chinese officials and, more recently, with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, along with 39 other member countries of the UN that have expressed their views. This country — our country — remains deeply committed to the well-being of the Uighur minority, and it is false and misleading to use terms like “appeasement” to characterize efforts of this government in that regard.
Senator, may I also suggest that you mischaracterized or misunderstood what I was trying to say? This is not a question of the words that we use publicly. The actions that this government has taken — not all of which can be made public, are made public or should be made public — to secure a better situation for the Uighurs and the release of the two Michaels remain ongoing and consistent.