# Parliament passes Conservative motion requiring Government to act on China



## FJAG (25 Nov 2020)

Somehow this slipped past me last week but looks like the Government has been given 30 days to come up with a plan similar to what Australia has implemented.



> Parliament passes Conservative motion to demand government decision on Huawei and 5G
> Motion also calls on Liberals to develop plan to curb intimidation of Canadian citizens by China
> The Canadian Press · Posted: Nov 18, 2020
> 
> ...



See rest of article here.

 :cheers:


----------



## CBH99 (25 Nov 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Somehow this slipped past me last week but looks like the Government has been given 30 days to come up with a plan similar to what Australia has implemented.
> 
> See rest of article here.
> 
> :cheers:




Goodness gracious.  

For some reason I thought the LPC had already made a decision to ban Huawei from providing 5G tech to our networks...they STILL haven't made a decision on this?  By all means, take your sweet frickin' time.

I'm curious as to how 146 MP's actually voted AGAINST protecting Canadian citizens from intimidation & stemming China's influence on our policies, internal & external.  I imagine most are just loyal to the party and have to vote a certain way, albeit I suspect one or two of them may have some contact/pressure from Chinese 'factors' within their constituencies...


**EDIT -- it was some telecom providers that made the decision not to use their tech, essentially getting the government off the hook, I remember now


----------



## ArmyRick (25 Nov 2020)

This particular brand of Liberals has acted very irrationally. With everything I see them voting against, its either blatant partisan politics or their is something dirty going on behind the scenes.


----------



## Remius (25 Nov 2020)

Or maybe they are close to a deal on releasing the two Canadians being held in China and didn’t want to rock the boat.  The vote was clearly whipped. 

There could be a number of reasons why they voted that way.  

That being said, why this has not been resolved (the 5g thing) is beyond me.  Seems like a no brainer to tell China to pound dirt.


----------



## brihard (25 Nov 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Or maybe they are close to a deal on releasing the two Canadians being held in China and didn’t want to rock the boat.



I highly doubt it. Not with Weng Manzhou still in custody for probably the next year.


----------



## Remius (25 Nov 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I highly doubt it. Not with Weng Manzhou still in custody for probably the next year.



My point is that there could be any number of sensitive reasons why they decided to vote that way. 

Don’t get me wrong I am totally against China getting into our 5g network or anything else for that matter.    But there could be any number of background things happening.  And not all of it has to be nefarious.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Nov 2020)

The opposition motion has no binding force. The government can just keep on doing--or not doing--what it wants. 

Recent stories:



> Telus to build out 5G network without China’s Huawei
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-telus-to-build-out-5g-network-without-chinas-huawei/
> 
> What an Australian-style push against Chinese interference might look like
> ...



Mark
Ottawa
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-former-envoy-to-china-says-its-not-necessary-for-canada-to-monitor/


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Nov 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Or maybe they are close to a deal on releasing the two Canadians being held in China and didn’t want to rock the boat.  The vote was clearly whipped.
> 
> There could be a number of reasons why they voted that way.
> 
> That being said, why this has not been resolved (the 5g thing) is beyond me.  Seems like a no brainer to tell China to pound dirt.



I believe the network providers decided on their own not to use Huawei (after the various bans in the US and the uncertainty while they were planning upgrades) so became a moot point. That's a bit of a minefield while our citizens are held as political hostages, so can see why they didn't make a formal decision when it was effectively already made for them by 'the marketplace'.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Nov 2020)

Conclusion of a piece Terry Glavin:



> Canada’s China policy is still a shambles, whatever the minister says
> _The China of 2020 is a gruesome state-capitalist autocracy, just as it was in 2015 and in 2018. The Chinese Communist Party’s boot is still on the necks of the Muslim Uighurs of Xinjiang and the Bhuddists of Tibet and China’s human rights defenders..._
> 
> It was only three years ago that Justin Trudeau was boasting about his intention to have Canada usher China into its first free-trade agreement with a G7 country. It would be an historic, world-changing act that Trudeau described this way: “I know that as we look to building a better future for the entire world, the friendship between Canada and China will play an important role in setting the tone and the approach that will characterize the 21st century.”
> ...



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99 (25 Nov 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I believe the network providers decided on their own not to use Huawei (after the various bans in the US and the uncertainty while they were planning upgrades) so became a moot point. That's a bit of a minefield while our citizens are held as political hostages, so can see why they didn't make a formal decision when it was effectively already made for them by 'the marketplace'.




True.  I realize that when it comes to the China file, any decision that doesn't cater to what the Chinese want will probably be put on hold until our citizens are released, for their own safety.


----------



## Haggis (26 Nov 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The opposition motion has no binding force. The government can just keep on doing--or not doing--what it wants.
> 
> Recent stories:
> 
> ...


Given the Liberal's culture of impunity, that will be the likely outcome, whether the motion were binding or not.


----------

