Moved second reading of Bill S-277, An Act respecting a framework to strengthen Canada–Taiwan relations.

He said: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to rise today to begin discussions on Bill S-277, the Canada–Taiwan relations framework act, which I tabled in this chamber late in 2023.

The bill before us today takes an important step forward in our relations with the Republic of China, or Taiwan, as it is increasingly called, by establishing a broad framework for our foreign policy that is clearer and stronger, in order to better reflect and accommodate the realities of our growing partnership.

There is nothing particularly controversial about this bill, unless you are a Beijing apologist who insists that Taiwan does not have the sovereign right to decide its own future. Taiwan’s existence as a self-made, independent, self-governing and democratic nation has long been self-evident. This is a reality that should be embraced by all democratic countries and freedom-loving people. Taiwan is a free country that should remain free to choose its own future and its own government.

Canada has a mutually beneficial economic relationship with Taiwan that is steadily growing. Today, Taiwan is Canada’s twelfth-largest trading partner, our sixth-largest partner in Asia, with total annual bilateral trade now exceeding $12 billion annually. It is simply right, just and appropriate that we formalize and normalize our relationship with each other as much as possible here in the third decade of the 21st century.

It is timely that Canada steps up to modernize our relationship with Taiwan, especially given the evolution of the relationship between Taiwan and our great friend, neighbour, partner and ally, the United States of America.

The United States has shown great leadership in securing the continued independence of Taiwan, and I applaud all of the American administrations going back to Harry Truman for the decisive role their promises of security for Taiwan have played in the establishment of this great democracy in the Pacific Ocean.

Before I further discuss American initiatives regarding Taiwan and speak to my bill itself and to what I believe we should do as Canadians, it is useful to look at the social and political history of this unique subtropical Pacific island nation located 100 miles off the mainland coast of Southeast Asia.

History is important and instructive, yet it has become painfully obvious that many Canadians know little about the true history of our own country, a mostly noble and distinguished history, which, sadly, has been constantly misrepresented and maligned under this present regime in Ottawa.

Our institutions, particularly our schools and universities, to say nothing about Parks Canada and our so-called Department of Heritage, are failing Canadians with the lack of respect and the proliferation of invented narratives being tossed around about Canada’s history.

True history is true knowledge. Since so many Canadians seem to appreciate so little of our own history anymore, I’m sure that Canadian knowledge of Taiwanese history is even more deficient.

However, I do believe that if we have a better understanding of Taiwan’s history and political evolution, we will understand why Taiwan deserves our continued support, why Taiwan has the right for self-determination, and why we should support this bill.

Taiwan first entered the consciousness of the Western world when it was sighted in 1517 by Portuguese sailors, who recorded it on their navigational maps as Ilha Formosa, which means “the beautiful isle” in Portuguese.

Although the Portuguese never settled there, they gave it a name that has endured for centuries, and with good reason. As someone who has visited Taiwan four times, I can assure everyone who hasn’t been there that it is a beautiful place.

Topographically, from north to south, almost two thirds of the island is mountainous and dominates the eastern side of the island, while one third, fertile western plains, contains about 90% of the island’s population.

In the early 17th century, Formosa had an estimated population of over 100,000 people who were native to the island. The Spanish attempted to establish permanent colonies around this time, but these efforts never took root. They were eventually expelled by the Dutch, who had their own ambitions.

During this era, Han Chinese from the mainland migrated to Taiwan, many being brought there as labourers by the Dutch. Holland withdrew from the island in 1660.

In 1683, the island was formally annexed by mainland China, coming under the control of the Qing Dynasty, the last of the many royal dynasties that ruled mainland China from 2100 BC to 1911, a period of over 20 centuries. From the late 17th to the late 19th century, Formosa was increasingly populated by Han Chinese from the mainland.

Following the end of the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895, the recognized sovereignty of mainland China over Taiwan ended with the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, in which China ceded both the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan to Japan “in perpetuity.”

I trust that we all understand what “in perpetuity” means, although the Communist dictatorship in Beijing selfishly and conveniently ignores this legal declaration and obligation.

In 1911, after a decade of uprisings, the history of China irrevocably changed with the collapse and overthrow of the Qing dynasty and the eventual establishment of the Republic of China under the leadership of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, universally considered the founder of post-imperial China both on the mainland and in Taiwan.

Unfortunately, Dr. Sun Yat-sen died relatively young, about a decade later, and this was the beginning of almost four decades of perpetual strife on the mainland of China between the republicans and the Communists. Although it is now 129 years since mainland China relinquished its sovereignty over Taiwan and 75 years since the republicans established sovereignty there, the Communists still want to settle old scores. But Taiwan has moved on, putting the past behind it, and so should Beijing.

Imagine if China or Japan were to suddenly claim that Korea belongs to them today because, at one time in the past, they used to have governance or a territorial claim. No Western democratic country would accept such a claim, and with good reason. Taiwan’s circumstances are worthy of the same conclusions. Remember that from 1895 until 1945, Taiwan was legally Japanese territory, with Japanese law, schools and governance dominating the island during this period.

During this time, Japan increasingly attempted to create a Japanese society but with little effect overall. Following the end of World War II, the republican Chinese government seized control of Taiwan and declared it a province of the mainland. But Taiwan had been sovereign Japanese territory since 1895; it was not a place conquered through imperial Japanese expansion during World War II. Consequently, the claim of sovereignty over Taiwan made by mainland China was never supported in international law by its allies, regardless of what political forces oversaw the government of mainland China in the early postwar period between 1945 and 1950.

Unfortunately, the end of World War II in Southeast Asia also meant the resumption of civil war in China between the anti-Communist forces of the Kuomintang under General Chiang and the Communists under Mao, culminating in the Nationalist government’s removal to Taiwan in 1949 and the establishment of the Communist dictatorship on the mainland.

In 1950, the Korean War began. Korea ended up divided, primarily because of Beijing’s support of the communists in North Korea. Canadians fought and died in that war to save freedom in Korea, just as they did in Hong Kong.

If anyone in this chamber visits Korea, I urge you to visit the war graves at the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Busan where the Canadian war dead are buried. It is a magnificent oasis in the middle of that great and busy port city, and the respect the Koreans have for the sacrifices others made on their behalf is quite evident. Perhaps the memory of Canada’s role in that war is fading after 70 years, but I can assure you the Koreans have not forgotten our sacrifice.

The Southeast Asia that exists today is very much a creation of the four-year period between the Communist takeover of China in 1949 and the end of the Korean War in 1953. We still have a family-owned rogue state in North Korea and a Communist dictatorship in Beijing — both police states that love to threaten, bully and intimidate. Whether it is directed toward their own citizens or other countries’ seems to matter little or not at all to either of these dictatorships.

It is estimated that during Mao’s reign of terror, between 40 million and 80 million people died due to starvation, mass executions and forced prison labour. The murder of more millions in North Korea through similar means is well‑documented as well.

So, what else has transpired in this region of the globe in the past three quarters of a century? Well, in 1952, the Beijing dictatorship also sent their troops into Tibet and annexed the country against the wishes of the Tibetan people. Although the Communists still refer to it as an “autonomous region,” in 1959, it abolished the Tibetan government entirely.

This reminds one of conduct the world witnessed in the late 1930s, before the invasion of Poland, when troops marched into Austria and Czechoslovakia and annexed those independent nations. It was wrong then, and it was wrong in 1952 in Tibet and it is still wrong today.

Mao’s Communists destroyed over 6,000 monasteries during Mao’s Great Leap Forward, devastating Tibet’s magnificent cultural and architectural heritage, with almost 1 million Tibetans liquidated in the process. They probably would have destroyed most of their own cultural treasures as well, except the Nationalists had the foresight to remove them to Taiwan in 1949. They are now permanently on rotational display at the National Taiwan Museum — a must-see for any first-time visitor in Taiwan.

Also in 1952, the Treaty of San Francisco ended the Allied occupation of postwar Japan and returned complete control and sovereignty to the people and government of Japan. Importantly, in this treaty, Japan renounced any legal claim it had to Taiwan. After they renounced it, Taiwan happened to be on its own for three years, an orphan child of a country. But they’ve been on their own for almost 75 years now, and that orphan child is all grown up.

Other significant political changes occurred later, in the 1990s, with the British colony of Hong Kong and the Portuguese colony of Macao being transferred to the control of Beijing under the “one country, two systems” formula, through which the Communists promised strong degrees of autonomy for these two successful and prosperous colonies. Subsequent developments, particularly in Hong Kong, have exposed the duplicity and insincerity inherent when dealing with the Communist dictatorship under its present leadership.

The promise of a more reasonable Beijing as represented by Deng Xioping and Zhao Ziyang in the 1980s has been lost, replaced by a mean-spirited and oppressive authoritarianism. Isn’t it telling that Beijing expected the United Kingdom and Portugal to uphold treaty obligations in regard to Hong Kong and Macao yet refused to honour their own promises? Communist Beijing has no honour. However, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have all exhibited magnificent social, economic and political transformations since the early 1950s. None of those countries had democratic roots. Indeed, both Korea and Taiwan were for centuries squeezed between the ambitions of imperial China and imperial Japan. But all three have evolved into modern, prosperous, first-world nations with dynamic economies and high standards of living. They are great friends and allies of the Western world. In fact, they are all integral parts of the Western world.

These three nations are free and prosperous, an archipelago of democracy just beyond the mainland that contains Communist China, North Korea and Russia. In a part of the world where freedom is still denied to so many, they stand out as examples of what can be accomplished when democratic values are sincerely pursued and embraced.

Freedom House, the American non-profit organization — founded in 1941 under the honorary chairmanships of Republican Wendell Willkie and Democrat Eleanor Roosevelt — is best known for its political advocacy, assessing issues of democracy, political freedom and human rights. It was founded on the core conviction that freedom flourishes in democratic nations where governments are accountable to their people. According to its reputable rating system, Taiwan scores 94 out of 100 on the freedom scale. That is on par with Canada and Japan and is actually higher than the United States and much of Europe. Russia, by contrast, scored 13 out of 100, Communist China scored 9 out of 100, and North Korea scored 3 out of 100.

Before I continue, I want to mention that, in my speech today, when discussing mainland China’s attitude toward Taiwan, I am making a conscious and deliberate reference to the actions of the authoritarian powers in Beijing — the Chinese Communist Party and its leadership — and not to the Chinese people in general. It has nothing to do with the people of this great and ancient civilization who find themselves trapped inside their own country by this monolithic dictatorship in Beijing. But the fact remains that, since 1949, Beijing has played absolutely no role politically or economically in the evolution and development of modern Taiwan. Regional suzerainty over Taiwan should be understood as something best left in the history books, a circumstance rapidly and rightfully disappearing in the rear-view mirror.

I just think it is so sad and unfortunate for the peace and stability of the world that the Beijing government has been so confrontational and increasingly difficult for the Western world to trust. For a while in the last part of the 20th century, relations seemed to get better, but they have worsened as of late, and the Communist dictatorship is at fault.

If you want to imagine what a democratic China might look like, all you have to do is look at Taiwan. I couldn’t think of a better place to look. Modern Taiwan today is about 96% Han Chinese, making it ethnically more Chinese than mainland China itself, interestingly, which is just over 91% Han Chinese and much more culturally diverse.

While China’s growth and economy are now faltering, Taiwan’s is continuing to be strong, its growth now exceeding China’s over the past few years. I think Beijing somehow resents the great social and economic success evident in Taiwan today. We certainly know that they covet it.

The world, including those who live on mainland China, also see how successful the democratic Chinese state of Taiwan has become, and Beijing fears the increasing awareness of this throughout the population on the mainland. If Taiwan is any indication — and I believe that it is — a democratically elected government in China could achieve great things for their citizens and the world and be a universal force for good. I hope it will come to pass in my lifetime — in all of our lifetimes.

In the meantime, Taiwan continues to be a great friend, ally and trading partner of Canada. In addition, they don’t steal our technology and destroy great Canadian companies like Nortel. They don’t hack the communications of Canadian members of Parliament. They don’t interfere with Canadian elections. They don’t intimidate its diaspora in Canada by threatening them and persecuting family back in Taiwan, nor does Taiwan kidnap Canadian citizens and hold them hostage.

Yet for all its advancement and display of self-government, Taiwan still finds itself unfairly marginalized by the international community. How and why does this occur? It begins primarily, not surprisingly, with the United Nations. In 1971, an increasingly activist and anti-Western UN voted to move the seat designated for China from the Republic of China — Taiwan — to the People’s Republic of China on the mainland. To be fair, since the People’s Republic of China had been in charge of mainland China for 22 years by that time, their sovereignty was functionally undeniable. However, that begs the question: Why, then, is almost 75 years of uninterrupted domestic rule in Taiwan being ignored? Taiwan’s sovereignty is well established by any reasonable test under international law.

When Canada held the Olympics in 1976, the Trudeau government, which had broken off diplomatic relations with Taiwan even before the UN did, refused to let Taiwan participate under its legal name of the Republic of China, siding with the UN and China instead of our allies in the U.S. and Taiwan. This was not the right thing to do. Apparently, being enamoured with the Beijing dictatorship is a Trudeau family trait.

However, when the United States finally recognized the People’s Republic of China as the legitimate representative of China in 1979, it did not want to completely isolate Taiwan on the world stage. The Americans showed courage and leadership by simultaneously passing the Taiwan Relations Act, legislation that put in place a policy of deliberate ambiguity toward Taiwan in order to preserve political stability in the region. In short, they were not prepared to abandon them socially or economically, nor see their peaceful existence compromised.

Canada’s working relationship with Taiwan today mostly mirrors that of the Americans, except for the notable military presence of the U.S. 7th Fleet in the southwest Pacific. However, we have no equivalent or even facsimile of legislation to strengthen our relationship with Taiwan and to reiterate our commitment to Taiwan choosing its own path forward. The time has come for a legislated enhancement of our bilateral relationship with Taiwan. Not only is it the right thing to do, but polling indicates that Canadians would approve of us strengthening this relationship.

For the first four decades under its own administration, Taiwan admittedly had a difficult existence. It was a one-party state under martial law. I don’t minimize the excesses of the state during that era nor excuse them or pretend that they didn’t exist, but look at what has emerged in the 21st century. The Taiwan that has been created in our lifetime is a country worth celebrating and emulating. Today, Taiwan is a multi-party democracy, a prosperous, First World country with a literacy rate of over 99% — the most literate population of any country in the world.

As the global leader in the production of semiconductors, Taiwan is very important technologically to Western society. An advanced country by any measurement of social progress, its medical, transportation, educational and scientific institutions are second to none in their strength and vitality.

Taiwan is also a regional leader in individual rights, and much of its progress is due to the freedoms they have put to good use: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, economic freedom and the freedom to choose those who would govern them.

I believe there are several good reasons why the present situation calls for Canada to reinforce our engagement with Taiwan with legislation that reflects the proactive approach of lawmakers in the U.S., the U.K. and other like-minded democracies in recent years to strengthen and modernize relations.

First, in this regard, the United States Congress has seen a steady stream of legislation in recent years concerning relations with Taiwan, including the passing of the following acts of Congress: One, the United States-Taiwan Initiative on 21st‑Century Trade First Agreement Implementation Act, 2023; A bill to direct the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to regain observer status for Taiwan in the World Health Organization, and for other purposes, in 2022; the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative, (TAIPEI) Act of 2019; and the 2018 passage of the Taiwan Travel Act, encouraging bilateral visits by officials at all levels.

Many other initiatives have been undertaken or are currently under review by Congress, including the Taiwan Conflict Deterrence Act of 2023; the PROTECT Taiwan Act, 2023, which has passed the House; the Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2023 regarding their inclusion in the IMF, which has passed the House; a bill to amend the Taiwan Assurance Act, which has passed the House; and the Taiwan International Solidarity Act, 2023, which has also passed the U.S. House.

As you can see, lawmakers in the U.S. have been, and continue to be, exceptionally proactive in modernizing their foreign policies relating to Taiwan. I salute the Americans for their forbearance, loyalty and commitment.

Likewise, parliamentary committees in the United Kingdom have been studying the situation in the Indo-Pacific and are increasingly calling for their government to strengthen relations with Taipei. The United Kingdom House of Commons Defence Committee released a 2023 report entitled UK Defence and the Indo-Pacific: Government Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report of Session 2022–23, which urged their government to prepare for a range of actions by China toward Taiwan.

In their report, the committee stated that while the Indo-Pacific is an economically fertile region, it is also a key crucible for geopolitical competition between China and the West, with the South China Sea and Taiwan being the most concerning flashpoint. The report states:

. . . It appears that China intends to confront Taiwan, whether by direct military action or ‘grey zone’ attacks, in the coming years. Any conflict in Taiwan will have formidable consequences across the globe and risks the international rules-based order. . . .

Similarly, the U.K. House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee released a report in 2023 providing significant attention to U.K.-Taiwan relations. The report, entitled Tilting Horizons: the Integrated Review and the Indo-Pacific, states:

. . . The emphasis placed on Taiwan by our Committee reflects our resolute belief in the importance of protecting the right to self-determination and to choose your own Government, free from threat or coercion. . . .

The report went on to proclaim:

Taiwan is already an independent country, under the name Republic of China (ROC). Taiwan possesses all the qualifications for statehood, including a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states — it is only lacking greater international recognition.

The report also provided an extensive list of recommendations: that the government should support inward and outward ministerial visits with Taiwan; that the U.K. campaign for Taiwan to be admitted to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, better known as the CPTPP, be supported; that there is better understanding that the U.K.’s “One China” policy, like Canada’s, is not the same as China’s “One China” principle, an acknowledgment that would prevent policymakers from acting over-cautiously when it comes to interacting with Taiwanese officials; that the U.K. should strengthen its existing cooperation with Taiwan; that the U.K. should pursue effective policy of deterrence diplomacy to contribute to the protection of the right to self-determination of the people of Taiwan; that the U.K. should promote further investment in Taiwan’s industries; and that the U.K. should press for Taiwan’s inclusion in international bodies, including the World Health Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Energy Agency and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans‑Pacific Partnership, for the benefit of all countries.

I provide you with these recent initiatives undertaken by lawmakers in the U.S. and the U.K. as an example of the proactive efforts being undertaken around the world by like‑minded democracies to strengthen and modernize relations with Taiwan.

The Americans continue to show great leadership on Taiwan, and our approach should be as supportive as possible.

I submit to you, colleagues, that Bill S-277 is consistent with these efforts of maintaining and enhancing a mutually beneficial relationship.

Another reason to reinforce our engagement with Taiwan is Canada’s valuable bilateral trading relationship with Taiwan, the growth of which would benefit both of our countries. I can also attest that during my visits to Taiwan, I see Canadian values reflected in Taiwanese society, and I believe most Canadians would feel the same way once they spent some time in that country. It is such a great country. Taipei, the capital, is one of the safest big cities in the world — a very welcoming and comfortable place to experience. I always feel a real connection to that country when I am there. They treat their friends and allies well. The Taiwanese appreciate their friends.

Sadly, the increasingly provocative conduct of Beijing towards Taiwan, including military intimidation, is uncalled for but dictates that those who want peace and stability in the region should send a signal that Taiwan does not stand alone in the world. The creation and militarization of artificial islands in the region and the overt displays of military exercises near Taiwan, including the deliberate crossing of the median line of the Taiwan Strait, are clear examples of the diplomatic provocations by the communist dictatorship that have become far too common in recent years.

Taiwan is being constantly intimidated, but it’s clear that Taiwan is not going away. Their people are courageous, resilient and are determined to choose their own future, but they need and deserve the support of their friends.

The reality is that our current bilateral relationship does not foster the full potential of this partnership. It does not accommodate the realities of the current relations that we, and much of the modern Western democracies, share with Taiwan.

That’s why Bill S-277 offers plain, direct language in codifying the Government of Canada’s policy to preserve and promote close relations between the people of Canada and the people of Taiwan, encompassing economic, cultural and legal affairs.

I should note again that this bill is by no means a radical document. It does not call for the recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign state, nor does it alter the status quo in our relations with Beijing, so the bill is consistent with Canada’s One China policy. The bill explicitly states that Canada is to conduct its foreign relations on the basis that peace and stability in the Indo‑Pacific region are in the political, security and economic interests of Canada and are matters of international concern. Peace and stability are in everyone’s interests. The status quo is best protected by making sure the relationship with Taiwan is strong and durable and that Taiwan’s independence is respected and defended.

Although our One China policy recognizes the People’s Republic of China as the sole government of China, it merely takes note of the PRC’s claim that Taiwan is part of China. It does not accept or endorse Beijing’s position, nor do our closest allies.

This has always been our position. It must remain so. As Global Affairs officials have testified at parliamentary committees, our One China policy is deliberately flexible and strategically ambiguous to allow for continued unofficial relations, trade and investment with the people of Taiwan.

Nonetheless, I believe that our foreign policy must recognize the evolved reality that Taiwan has become one of our fastest growing trading partners, is among the largest economies in the world and is an ally of significant strategic proportion to Canada and our allies in the Indo-Pacific region. We are overdue for a foreign policy that is clear in expressing support for our allies, especially when faced with such overt displays of intimidation and coercion.

I am not going to venture further into extensive comment on Beijing’s position on Taiwan; that’s not the focus of this bill. But it must be recognized they have openly stated that they will not rule out the use of force to reunify or annex Taiwan. It is essential that the democratic West treat these lawless threats as unnecessary and unacceptable provocations.

Honourable senators, the self-determination of a nation is not a matter of subjective opinion. It is a right and a core principle of international law. It is recognized in Article 1 of the UN Charter.

Although Canada and much of the international community have not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign state, we surely must accept and support their right to self-determination.

In this context, and in the interest of peace and security, Bill S-277 states that Canada will consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by something other than peaceful means, or by boycotts or embargoes, to be a threat to the peace and security of the Indo-Pacific region and of grave concern to Canada.

Furthermore, although Taiwan already regularly partners with allies such as the United States and Canada in security operations, the bill proposes that Canada will continue to promote meaningful security and defence cooperation between Canada and Taiwan, including by supporting Taiwan’s participation in regional security dialogues and military exercises.

Bill S-277 proposes to declare the Government of Canada’s support for Taiwan’s participation in multilateral international organizations, including the World Health Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization and Interpol, and encourages other states and non-governmental organizations to support this goal so that Taiwan may play a role commensurate with its position in the Indo-Pacific region. They have a contribution to make that will make a positive difference in these international organizations, and it’s certainly time that they fully participate.

The bill also instructs the government to support Taiwan’s participation in international trade agreements, including the Comprehensive and Progressive agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP.

Finally, the bill offers additional provisions for the purposes of furthering international cooperation between Canada and Taiwan, including an exemption for the president or senior government officials of Taiwan from the requirement to obtain a visa when the primary purpose of their visit to Canada is not official. This will simply allow for more “layover diplomacy” opportunities.

It will also permit the office of the representative of the Government of Taiwan in Canada to be referred to as the “Taiwan Representative Office” and the Trade Office of Canada in Taipei to be referred to as the “Canadian Representative Office in Taiwan.”

Honourable senators, Bill S-277 offers plain language provisions to common-sense initiatives to strengthen relations between Canada and one of our largest trading partners and strategic allies in the Indo-Pacific region. This initiative is fully supported by Taipei’s representatives here in Ottawa.

As I said, the policy declarations listed in the bill are not radical, nor are they novel in their recognition of a need for strengthened relations.

In addition to the aforementioned efforts in other like-minded democracies, in March of 2023, our House of Common’s Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship released an interim report entitled Canada and Taiwan: A Strong Relationship in Turbulent Times.

It’s an excellent report and I commend the members of the special committee for their timely initiative. The report ultimately presented 12 recommendations relating to Canada–Taiwan relations. The report states:

The PRC’s recent aggression towards Taiwan is a stark reminder that the peaceful status quo between Taiwan and the PRC remains precarious.

It concludes that enhanced engagement by Canada with Taiwan is important in the face of this increased aggression from the People’s Republic of China, or PRC, and to ensure that peace and stability remain.

In the interest of time, I won’t list every recommendation, but, among its findings, the special committee recommends:

That the Government of Canada offer and declare its clear and unwavering commitment that the future of Taiwan must only be the decision of the people of Taiwan.

Additionally, the report calls for the government to “. . . support increased engagement between Canada and Taiwan by encouraging visits by parliamentary delegations.”

It also recommends:

That the Government of Canada strongly consider the benefits of diplomatic visits to Taiwan.

That the Government of Canada engage with allies to further opportunities for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in multilateral organizations . . . .

That the Government of Canada seek to learn from Taiwan’s experience in addressing disinformation and foreign interference . . . .

That the Government of Canada explore opportunities to collaborate with Taiwan’s semiconductor industry to enhance innovation in Canada.

That Global Affairs Canada work . . . to advance Canada’s role as a key supplier of critical minerals to like-minded partners, including Taiwan . . . .

That the Government of Canada prioritize the assessment of Taiwan’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The report also recommends:

That the Government of Canada work with its allies, including the G7, to indicate support for the peaceful status quo in the Taiwan Strait and to consider adopting best practices to cooperate with Taiwan on peace and security issues.

And it recommends:

That the Government of Canada, in response to military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, publicly call on the People’s Republic of China to refrain from escalating its military threats.

The proposals in this bill are by no means novel or unreasonable. They parallel, in many ways, the recommendations of a parliamentary committee — a committee that heard from many experts in the field. I would suggest that the policy initiatives in this bill are consistent with the values of this country.

The bill is also consistent with and builds upon Canada’s Indo‑Pacific Strategy, which states that Canada should continue to work with our partners to push back against any unilateral actions that threaten peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and that Canada should grow its economic and people-to-people ties with Taiwan while supporting its resilience.

Colleagues, I entered the Senate of Canada over 15 years ago. During my first year here, I attended the national day celebration hosted by the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office here on the Hill. The room was three-quarters empty. In the subsequent years, more and more attended, with more and more commitment to Taiwan becoming increasingly evident.

This year, the event was packed with parliamentarians from all political walks of life and guests enthusiastically supporting Taiwan. As a senator dedicated to the promotion of freedom and democratic principles around the world, it was a wonderful sight to see.

Canadians still prefer to have a positive and mutually beneficial relationship with the government in Beijing, if they show the willingness to do so, but they cannot be telling us who our friends are. That is for us alone to determine. And no one in Canada is saying that Taiwan and the mainland can’t be one country. We just believe that it is up to the Taiwanese to decide.

Last October, I had the privilege of leading a delegation of senators to Taiwan. Although it was not my first visit to the Republic of China, it was for my accompanying Senate colleagues, and they were unquestionably both moved and impressed by what they witnessed and experienced. We had great meetings for almost a week, and we finished up with a great working dinner and discussion with Foreign Minister Joseph Wu, and, of course, the highlight of our visit was an hour audience with Madam President Tsai Ing-wen at the Presidential Office. I know that my colleagues who attended would agree we had a wonderful exchange with the President, and she wanted us to express to all Canadians how much our friendship is valued by the people in the Republic of China.

I also had the privilege to present a copy of this bill as a personal token to the President during our audience.

Honourable senators, it matters if the Parliament of Canada, through a bill such as this, were to endorse a declaration for strengthened relations between the people of Canada and the people of Taiwan. It matters to the people of Taiwan and it matters to Canadians, for this bill is as much about Canada as it is about Taiwan — about how we see ourselves as an ally, as a friend and as a nation that cares about our friends.

I urge you to give this bill serious attention. I believe it presents a framework that is consistent with findings from a parliamentary committee, is consistent with our Indo-Pacific Strategy and remains consistent with our One-China policy. Canada should always stand to uphold values respecting human rights and democratic principles, and our foreign policy should reflect that we, openly and unequivocally, stand with like-minded democracies, especially those being unfairly threatened and intimidated.

Taiwan survived a painful birth and childhood as a nation. From 1971 onward, it was abandoned and marginalized by much of the international community, but the people of Taiwan endured despite the obstacles set before them. Practically left on their own, they nonetheless created a prosperous, democratic, First World nation where the rule of law is paramount and democratic freedoms are deeply entrenched. In short, they accomplished something politically that is very rare to do — they took defeat, and they turned it into victory.

Freedom-loving people everywhere applaud their success, and it is incumbent upon Canada to help ensure, to the best of our realistic possibilities, that these free, democratic and self‑determined people remain free and independent.

Taiwan needs our support. Taiwan deserves our support, and I encourage all my colleagues to support sending this bill to committee as soon as possible. At this late hour, thank you for your time and attention to this complex and very important matter.

I’m shocked, Senator Woo, that you want to bring up a question.

Sure, go ahead.

No, I don’t think I mentioned that in my speech. What I am saying is it’s 2024 and not 1992, and that things evolve, and the people of Taiwan have made it very clear that they want to make up their own minds in terms of their future, and I think we should support them.

That may be your interpretation of my speech. It is certainly not the intent of my speech. I support Taiwan’s right to make its own decisions on the future.