The Candice Malcolm Show - Canada’s insignificant role on the world stage

00:00:00.000 In 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the world that Canada is back. Well, in the six years

00:00:06.160 since, he has embarrassed the country over and over again, and Canada is more significant than

00:00:10.920 ever. I'm Candice Malcolm, and this is The Candice Malcolm Show.

00:00:17.900 Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for tuning into the show. And as we get closer to Christmas,

00:00:22.120 we'd like to take a step back and take a broader look at the country, look at some of the deeper

00:00:27.320 themes as the news cycle slows down a little. And we are doing that today. I'm delighted to be joined

00:00:32.680 by a member of Parliament, a Conservative Member of Parliament, Garnett Genis. Garnett is the MP for

00:00:37.740 Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan. He was first elected in 2015, has been re-elected with more

00:00:42.560 than 50% of the vote in every election since. In Parliament, he has been a vocal proponent for

00:00:48.180 Alberta's interest in Ottawa, fighting back against the carbon tax and advocating for more Canadian

00:00:52.640 oil and gas. Garnett currently serves as the Conservative Critic for International Development.

00:00:58.000 In his time as an elected official, he has prompted a return to Canada's principled foreign policy,

00:01:03.680 and has gained a reputation for being a tireless advocate for human rights and religious freedoms,

00:01:08.320 both domestically and abroad. So, Garnett, thank you so much for joining us today.

00:01:12.080 Well, thank you, Candice. It's great to be with you and have this conversation.

00:01:15.760 So, I want to talk about foreign policy, and we will get there. But before, there's just one

00:01:20.720 question that I really want to ask you about a recent bill that received unanimous consent

00:01:26.480 and passed without a vote in the House of Commons. And I'm talking about the government's bill on what

00:01:31.600 they call conversion therapy. So, I know that you ran a campaign on this topic. You said everyone,

00:01:37.680 in theory, opposes the idea of conversion therapy. I think that the name of the bill was called

00:01:43.440 conversion therapy because it elicits such a negative response when people hear about it.

00:01:47.360 They think of a sort of outdated, cruel practice. And yet, your criticism of it was that the bill was

00:01:54.400 too broad and too vague. And because of the vagueness and the broadness of the wording,

00:01:59.920 it could actually have a negative impact on freedom of speech. It could ban just normal conversations

00:02:05.520 between teenagers and their parents, between qualified therapists, between members of their church.

00:02:11.280 If someone seeks on their own, you know, freely seeks to go get counseling, that could actually

00:02:17.760 be banned by this law. And yet, you know, when it came through the House of Commons,

00:02:22.960 all of the Conservatives voted in favor of it. This is after twice opposing the bill. And from best

00:02:28.160 I can tell, it hadn't been rewritten, and those definitions hadn't been changed. So,

00:02:32.080 I want to ask you your opinion on this bill, and why is it that the Conservatives stopped opposing this bill?

00:02:37.760 Sure. Well, I guess a little bit of the context. I think, you know, in general terms, you describe

00:02:48.320 my position on this issue well. I'm opposed to conversion therapy. I support efforts to ban 1.00

00:02:56.000 conversion therapy. I think when we legislate, we need to look at the definitions that are given

00:03:03.120 to that terminology. If you ban something that everybody agrees should be banned, and yet you

00:03:08.960 define it in a way that is incorrect in terms of the way people conceive of the definition,

00:03:16.160 then you've ended up banning something other than the thing you set out to ban. I use the analogy in

00:03:22.960 the House. If you say, we're going to ban hard drugs, I'm with you. If you call coffee a hard drug

00:03:29.440 through an error of the definition, then I'm going to be not with you. So,

00:03:35.840 this is something that, you know, that I think it's a pretty clear thing to point out to say,

00:03:41.520 hey, like, let's analyze the bill. Let's look at the definition used in it. And in particular,

00:03:47.840 in the last parliament, I spoke about the need to fix the definition in then Bill C-6, because

00:03:53.360 the issue was that the definition included, it was broad enough to include even private

00:04:02.720 conversations, not involving a therapist or official person of any, or just a conversation.

00:04:08.640 And it was broad enough that it defined as conversion therapy, any effort to reduce sexual

00:04:15.760 attraction or behavior. So I think a reasonable inference from that is that like a conversation

00:04:21.440 in which a mentor tells a young person that they should modify their sexual behavior in some way,

00:04:28.400 that that would be construed under the definition as being conversion therapy. And that's obviously

00:04:33.840 not what conversion therapy is. When people who, I mean, many people aren't aware of this,

00:04:37.600 but when people who are aware of conversion therapy, they understand that to mean acts of violence,

00:04:43.040 coercion, degrading someone efforts to sort of compel a change in sexual orientation, it's, you know,

00:04:53.200 those are methods that were sort of experimented with at times in the past. And look, they're wrong,

00:05:00.960 they're degrading, they're evil, and also they don't achieve the stated objective. So it's a bit of a

00:05:08.480 language trick on the government's part to say, you know, you know, if you, if you, if you are,

00:05:14.320 if you're in favor, if you're against this bill, then you're in favor of conversion therapy, allegedly,

00:05:19.520 but then demanding a lack of scrutiny around the definition. You know, Candace, you asked some

00:05:25.840 questions about, about process, just, I'll just share with folks that, you know, we're gonna, we're gonna be

00:05:30.960 talking a lot about foreign policy, I was in Europe for NATO and OSCE meetings last week. And I'm sure

00:05:39.120 we'll get to just the, the emerging security concerns in, in Eastern Europe as a, as a result of

00:05:46.400 the aggressive posture that Russia was taking, I was, I was invited to be part of, of a parliamentary

00:05:53.120 delegation that was present for those meetings. And to be honest, I would not have expected

00:06:00.960 the process that was followed before I, before I went on the trip. I, I didn't expect to be,

00:06:07.360 to be missing votes. And so I've had some conversations with colleagues about, you know,

00:06:13.040 how, how this unfolded, but I, I can't really speak to the process piece, because those were

00:06:18.160 things that I either wasn't involved in, or to the extent that I know about them, I know about them

00:06:23.360 because of, because of private conversations I've had with other colleagues.

00:06:26.480 Well, it's interesting, because you said that it's a word trick, and it's with a definition,

00:06:31.040 the media bought right into it. So the whole idea was, oh, there's these 63 conservative MPs

00:06:36.080 who support this harmful practice called conversion therapy, even though you ran a campaign that was

00:06:42.000 pretty clear, called change, fix the definition that said that you were opposed to literal conversion

00:06:47.600 therapy, but you were not in favor of this bill because of the wording. So we saw a lot of dishonesty

00:06:52.720 across the board. And I think for a lot of conservatives, it was just strange to see

00:06:57.200 you guys abandon a bill that you had previously, abandon opposing a bill that you previously had a

00:07:02.720 really strong opposition to, and then just sort of, you know, having this, I guess, feel good moment,

00:07:07.600 not over where everyone agrees, which is not really what you want in your parliament, you want

00:07:11.600 opposition, but yeah, let's move on. So why don't you tell us a little bit about what, what you're

00:07:15.760 working on with regards to NATO and the aggression of the Russian government towards Ukraine?

00:07:20.880 Well, so last week, I was in Latvia for a couple days on the sidelines at the NATO summit that was

00:07:31.280 happening there. And then I was in Stockholm, where the OSCE summit was, and a lot of interesting

00:07:39.440 conversations with respect to the situation in Eastern Europe. I think it's important for more

00:07:45.760 people to know just about the, the important leadership role that Canada is playing as part

00:07:51.040 of our NATO mission in Latvia. And this is something that obviously has the support of,

00:07:56.240 of all parties being, being an active participant in NATO, being part of that NATO, NATO forward presence.

00:08:02.640 And, you know, if you, if you go to Holland, there's a lot of, there's a lot of gratitude,

00:08:08.960 of course, to Canada for the role we play to liberation during the Second World War. In Latvia,

00:08:14.320 there, there's a lot of recognition of Canada as well, for the fact that we're leading a battle

00:08:18.880 group there and, you know, full, full credit to our, our armed forces for the incredible work they do

00:08:24.400 around the world. Sometimes not with the level of resources from, from government that, you know,

00:08:31.600 certainly we've, we've talked in the past about, about increasing our, our, our, our defense

00:08:38.880 engagement and moving towards that, that NATO target of 2% of GDP. So, so, so there's a lot

00:08:47.120 of awareness of the fact that there's a Russian military buildup, increasing Russian military

00:08:52.320 activities and, you know, concern about what steps may be, may be taken next by Russia. And I don't think

00:09:00.080 that'll be a new information by, to, to many people, but I just think we need to, we need to

00:09:06.880 really take seriously the possibility that, that the Putin regime are planning something and we need

00:09:13.840 to reflect on, on our and NATO's level of, of readiness to respond. So, so maybe you can walk us

00:09:21.200 through a little bit more details because I think maybe some viewers don't know what, what specifically

00:09:26.320 is Canada's involvement when it comes to the operation you're talking about in Latvia? How

00:09:30.800 many troops do we have there and what specifically is the Trudeau government doing with, with regards to,

00:09:38.640 you know, the, the, the aggression that we might be seeing from Russia?

00:09:40.960 Yeah. Yeah. So, so there's a, there's a mission in enhanced forward presence. The idea of, of having

00:09:48.800 more NATO countries present providing a level of, of reassurance in, in NATO countries that are,

00:09:57.360 that are sort of geographically closer to, to Russia. So Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and, and Poland. And

00:10:06.480 there is a, there are various countries involved in, in each of those missions. And there is a country

00:10:15.440 that is leading each, each battle group. So, you know, the UK, the US, Germany, or the other,

00:10:22.640 other nations leading battle groups and Canada's leading the battle group in, in, in Latvia. So,

00:10:29.120 we're, we're, we're present there. We're, we're, we're part of, of leading that mission. And there's,

00:10:35.440 there's many other countries that are involved and that we're, we're cooperating with. And I mean,

00:10:40.560 I think there's, there's a lot of benefits to that, that operation and the obvious one in terms of

00:10:44.880 demonstrating our, our readiness and our solidarity with NATO members. But, but it's, look, it's, it's also a

00:10:51.920 great opportunity for, for our, you know, various NATO countries to work together. And I think, I think

00:10:59.280 the battle group in Latvia is actually the largest in terms of the number of countries that are, that

00:11:03.840 are represented. So, so it's, it was interesting to hear in the briefing, just about that, that breadth

00:11:10.160 being something that the Canadian Armed Forces is able to do really well, which is, which is

00:11:15.040 collaboration with other NATO partners and, and building that large multi, multinational force.

00:11:23.760 You know, I, I think the, the, the concern around action that Russia would take, I should say that

00:11:30.720 the Putin regime would take would be specifically into Ukraine. And in, in the sort of side meetings I

00:11:38.240 was a part of, there's a lot of discussion about this question of, of, of NATO enlargement, because you

00:11:44.160 have, you have, you have Ukraine, you have Georgia countries that, that, that the Putin regime is, is

00:11:52.240 interfering in, in various ways, and that don't have that kind of security blanket of being part of,

00:12:00.560 part of NATO. On the one hand, Russia complains about the enlargement of, of NATO, but on the other hand,

00:12:06.720 they don't, you know, they, they, they take advantage of, of, of countries that are not covered by that security

00:12:17.040 blanket, and they're more likely to, to intervene and interfere there. So, this is, this is a concern,

00:12:23.920 obviously, and I think we have to think seriously about what kind of response we would, we would, we would

00:12:29.680 undertake if we see the kind of Russian aggression that a lot of people are talking about as being a realistic

00:12:34.960 possibility. You know, probably it would be, it would be further aggression in Ukraine beyond, 0.87

00:12:40.240 of course, the ongoing occupation and, and, and issues that are happening there.

00:12:45.600 So, one of the things that previous Harper government was known for was sort of a refusal to

00:12:50.480 bow down to other countries, especially bad actors and adversarial nations. We saw Harper,

00:12:56.640 one, stand up directly to Vladimir Putin. He stood up to the Iranian regime by kicking out their diplomats,

00:13:03.360 and he, he even stood up to the United Nations. Justin Trudeau, you couldn't have a more stark

00:13:07.600 difference between that and Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau said that he admired China's

00:13:12.080 dictatorship. He shook hands with Iran's foreign minister just days after Iran shot down a civilian

00:13:18.640 airline flight 752, murdering scores of Canadians, including students and children.

00:13:26.000 You know, during your time as an elected official and MP Garnett, have you seen Canada's reputation

00:13:34.560 change on the world stage? I know Justin Trudeau liked to say that he was bringing Canada back,

00:13:39.600 that the foreign policy diplomats were all, you know, applauding when he, when he was elected and

00:13:44.480 first entered the foreign affairs building. But, but, but, but on the ground out in these missions that you go on

00:13:51.440 and, and, and working with our allies, have you seen a change in, in Canada's reputation? And what,

00:13:57.600 what, how, how, how has Canada's reputation changed? You know, thanks. That's a, that's a really important

00:14:03.840 question. And, and look, as a, as a member of the loyal opposition, I'm obviously a proud Canadian,

00:14:10.080 and I want to see Canada do well. And I'm particularly proud of our, our armed forces and the courage that

00:14:16.320 the women and men in uniform show as, as part of the various missions that we're, we're a part of and,

00:14:21.760 and sometimes not getting the political support that they, that they should have. You talked about

00:14:27.760 Stephen Harper. I think one thing that, that really came out to me talking to various people in, in

00:14:34.480 Eastern Europe was, was sort of thinking about that trajectory of Putin aggression, that the, the kind of,

00:14:43.760 there were, there were various human rights issues and aggressive actions taken within the, the

00:14:49.680 territory of Russia itself. One critical step, I believe in 2008, I might be off a little bit, 0.55

00:14:56.400 but I believe in 2008 where Russia invaded Georgia. And this, this is, has perhaps lessened the conscience

00:15:07.360 of people in Canada. We have a closer relationship with Ukraine. But I think there's, there's a consensus now

00:15:13.360 that basically there was a, there was a lack of meaningful response to, to that act of Russian

00:15:20.800 aggression in, in Georgia. And there was sort of a perception in the Putin regime that they could,

00:15:26.240 could get away with that. In 2014, in the context of Russian aggression in Ukraine, there was a much

00:15:36.160 stronger, if anything sort of stronger than expected response from the international community in terms of

00:15:41.360 showing support for Ukraine. That response on Ukraine was substantially, I would argue, driven by

00:15:50.640 Stephen Harper's leadership within the, the G7. And Canada's firm, just refusal to accept a return to

00:16:01.760 sort of 19th century so-called great power politics in which big countries can bite off chunks of small

00:16:07.440 countries at will. We, we have to assert the, the principles of international law, the, the sovereignty

00:16:16.000 of states, the principle of self-determination against this kind of, this kind of might makes right

00:16:22.880 narrative. And Canada did that boldly, decisively. And, you know, Stephen Harper being well-respected,

00:16:32.000 the senior member of the G7 was, was, was, was able to maybe say things that Europeans or Americans at

00:16:40.320 the time were unwilling to say, but ultimately to pull that consensus towards us. So I think when you

00:16:48.560 are a, you know, when you're, when you're somewhere in between a super tower, pardon me, when you're

00:16:54.560 somewhere in between a super power and, and, and, and very small, when you're kind of a, at that, at that

00:17:00.320 middle level as Canada is part of many international organizations, you know, you, the degree to which

00:17:06.800 you're listened to really depends on the strength and credibility of your, of your leadership. The U.S.,

00:17:14.000 people have to listen to the U.S. regardless of what they think of the present of the day because of

00:17:18.560 its, its, its size and, and geopolitical importance. Canada is the sort of country where, where we have

00:17:26.960 an opportunity to be heard, but it's not inevitable that we will be heard or that we will be, we will

00:17:32.240 be listened to. And I think what I, what I see, and you can, I can see this quite clearly from the Biden

00:17:37.120 administration, its posture towards the Trudeau government is, you know, doing all the kind of nice

00:17:44.480 things and photo ops, but, but not really taking our concerns seriously, not really responding to

00:17:51.440 them. And, and, and I, I think Canadians have this perception of our, of our prime minister as

00:17:58.880 kind of in it for the image and, and not being that serious about the substance. And I think, look,

00:18:05.840 Canada as a country still has a great reputation around the world. But it is very hard to imagine

00:18:11.920 Justin Trudeau playing the same kind of leadership role today as Stephen Harper did on, on Ukraine.

00:18:20.560 That, that leadership required a willingness, yes, to work within multilateral frame frameworks,

00:18:25.360 but to lead and to be the first out of the gate and to, and to pull other countries towards us in

00:18:30.480 terms of the process of building consensus. I, I don't think, I don't think we are, we are likely to

00:18:36.720 see that kind of leadership from Justin Trudeau. We, we certainly haven't in the past.

00:18:41.920 It's been interesting. You talk about Russia. You can look at maybe China and other,

00:18:45.200 another important geo-strategic challenge that, that Canada faces. And obviously the Trudeau

00:18:50.960 government came in promising this, this golden age of, of relations between Canada and China.

00:18:58.560 And, and now what we've seen is, is like a shift in some of the rhetoric, right? The, the liberals,

00:19:04.400 the liberals are adopting some of the language of conservative foreign policy in, in some of their,

00:19:11.200 the way they try to frame what they're doing, but we're not seeing it in the substance. We're,

00:19:15.600 we're seeing a shift in posture, but not a shift in substance of our foreign policy. And that's,

00:19:19.680 that's a big concern.

00:19:20.400 Well, I do want to get to China, but before we do just quickly, there, there was an announcement

00:19:25.520 not too long ago of a new submarine deal between the UK, the US and Australia. And when I saw that

00:19:31.440 news Garnett and I, and I read the details to me, it was like, okay, we used to have this agreement

00:19:35.920 called the five eyes and it was, it was Canada in that mix and New Zealand as well. And here we have

00:19:40.400 this new, you know, groundbreaking technology and this, this, you know, next generation deal that,

00:19:46.480 that Canada was just completely left out of. So I'm wondering if you could comment on that

00:19:51.040 specifically and why Justin Trudeau, why under, under Justin Trudeau's leadership, Canada wasn't

00:19:56.400 involved in those discussions you talked about, not meeting our 2% NATO requirement that, that seemed

00:20:03.200 to be perhaps an opportunity to at least push it in that direction. If we were to make investments in,

00:20:08.800 in the submarine technology, icebreakers in the North, what, why isn't Canada involved in these conversations?

00:20:14.480 Well, I think it's a, it's an important question and it's a question we've asked. So we have an

00:20:22.000 opportunity as, as members of parliament to submit something called order paper questions, which is,

00:20:26.720 you know, people are thinking of questions in parliament, they think of the cut and thrust of

00:20:30.240 question period, which is obviously one, one great opportunity, but we also submit written questions,

00:20:34.640 which are, which are, are usually kind of detailed requests for information. And it's, it's,

00:20:40.960 it's harder for the government to, to avoid providing, providing answers to those. So, so,

00:20:46.160 although they, they still find ways of doing so. So, so I've submitted a, a question specifically on

00:20:52.160 AUKUS, the, the UK, US, Australia deal asking, was Canada part of discussions?

00:21:00.800 Was Canada invited to join? Would Canada be interested in joining? And I'm, I'm hopeful that,

00:21:07.040 that within the deadline of that question, the question, the response will have to be submitted

00:21:10.720 when parliament returns in January, at that point, we'll be able to see what the, what the response is.

00:21:16.720 But, but look, I mean, obviously this raises some, some red flags when we see kind of within the

00:21:26.080 Five Eyes, some members of the Five Eyes establishing agreements, which, I mean, they're, they're, they're

00:21:32.880 going to be some aspects of, of, for instance, US-Australia cooperation that are going to focus

00:21:37.440 on specific theaters where we're, where we're less present, but there's, there's a lot of elements of

00:21:42.640 the AUKUS deal, some of which I think would be, would be very relevant to, to Canada. And shortly

00:21:49.440 after that, I think people, people noticed the, the, the interaction between, between President Biden

00:21:58.240 and the Prime Minister of Australia, in which he said, the US has no more reliable friend and ally

00:22:03.120 than Australia, which I think, you know, from a Canadian perspective, is sort of like seeing your

00:22:08.080 spouse out for dinner with somebody else. You know, Biden has described his relationship with Canada

00:22:13.760 as the easiest relationship. So it's, it, it is interesting, you know, Trudeau has, has sat across

00:22:20.240 from three different American presidents. And I think a lot of people were willing to give him a

00:22:25.120 pass on certain things with Trump because they, they perceive Trump as a, as a, as a tough customer.

00:22:29.920 But when, when you have two, two democratic presidents and still really a failure to achieve

00:22:37.840 results and, and seeming gaps in terms of ability to cooperate, you start to wonder, you know, maybe,

00:22:44.160 maybe, maybe our current leadership is missing something in terms of, of effective engagement of

00:22:49.680 our allies. Well, so, so our relationship with the US, I mean, you, you shouldn't be seen as being easy

00:22:55.920 if you're, if you're Canada, you should bargain, you should still make demands, whether it be pipelines

00:23:01.120 or, you know, exemptions to meet in the USA tariffs. That, that, that should be an easier

00:23:06.400 relationship because we have so much in common and we share so many mutual values. So, so, so compare

00:23:12.560 that with, you know, seeing Trudeau have very few results with our greatest partner and ally, the US,

00:23:19.280 and then juxtapose that with, with China, where you have an adversarial regime, you have a

00:23:24.160 a terrible offender of human rights, you have, you know, a country that is, is acting more and more

00:23:30.960 belligerent on the world stage. And yet, you know, we have Trudeau failing to negotiate a trade deal,

00:23:37.520 a waffling, waffling on Huawei and, and, and how, how we're going to deal with them, not really standing

00:23:43.600 up in the way that many wanted to see with the two Michaels who are arbitrarily arrested. In the US,

00:23:49.200 we see both Democrats and Republicans in agreement about China's aggression and the need to build up 0.87

00:23:56.640 their own domestic economy so that they're less reliant on imports from China. Canada doesn't

00:24:02.880 seem to have an appetite to, to implement some of the same trade restrictions against China. So I'm

00:24:08.800 wondering if you could comment both on the foreign policy side with China and how Trudeau deals with

00:24:13.360 them and how, how we ought to deal with them in a different, different way. And then also address

00:24:18.240 the issue of trade and, and whether we are too reliant on, upon China, whether we ought to be building

00:24:25.280 up more of our own domestic or at least North American manufacturing base so that we're not

00:24:29.440 relying on, on China in the future. Yeah. So I, I think on, on the trade piece, it's maybe important to

00:24:35.520 distinguish between the question of, of trade in general and the question of strategic dependency.

00:24:41.200 Um, you know, trade, you know, you can, you can engage in commerce, um, without being in a position

00:24:47.920 of, of, um, of strategic vulnerability, where there are things that you are going to need at critical

00:24:53.360 times and, uh, and that access could be managed by, um, by an authoritarian political actor for their

00:25:01.440 own strategic, strategic reasons. Right. So we saw that a little bit with COVID with the, with the vaccines,

00:25:06.560 as well as with PP and E that we were reliant on China and they, they didn't really seem to, to care

00:25:10.960 and they didn't really seem to be reciprocal in, in terms of following through on agreements that we

00:25:14.800 had with them. Yeah, certainly it became evident through the study we did at the special committee

00:25:19.760 on Canada-China relations in the, in the last parliament that, uh, that there were political

00:25:24.160 decisions aimed at Canada in response to, to political factors. And, uh, there is, there are, there are many

00:25:30.320 advantages to focusing on, on, uh, expanding free trade among free nations, rule of law nations where,

00:25:36.640 um, you know, where, where, uh, contracts are, are formally enforceable and, um, and there can't be

00:25:43.440 threats made against, uh, judges, business people and, and, and, and so forth. Um, it doesn't mean we,

00:25:49.520 we can't and shouldn't trade with countries that, uh, that don't share our values. I mean, I think there 0.63

00:25:54.320 are, there are good arguments for both the economic benefits, but also the potential just engagement that can,

00:25:59.600 can flow from that. But, uh, separate from the question of trade in general, we, we have to be

00:26:06.000 attentive to this question of, of strategic dependency, uh, that, that came through the, the

00:26:11.520 pandemic and, um, and, uh, you know, we, we see it in other issues as well. I know during, during a

00:26:18.160 recent trip to Eastern Europe, a lot of, um, a lot of people are, are interested there in questions

00:26:23.280 around energy security, right? And, and we, we should, should think about the role that Canada can play,

00:26:28.000 uh, as a, as a, an exporter of energy resources in, uh, in supporting energy security, because that's

00:26:34.160 another, uh, one of those, uh, those strategic, strategic, uh, commodities and points of strategic

00:26:40.800 vulnerability for certain, uh, for certain like, like-minded countries. Um, on the sort of relationship

00:26:47.760 with, with, uh, with China in general, um, how we kind of relate to the Chinese government, I think

00:26:53.360 for a long time, the Trudeau government has just been very naive. Uh, they've, they sort of assumed

00:26:58.000 that if you're, if you're treating someone in a certain way that they will, uh, reciprocate that,

00:27:03.360 uh, uh, that, that treatment. And, um, we've seen in, in response to, I think, very effective

00:27:10.560 work in the last parliament, again, through the special committee on, on Canada-China relations,

00:27:14.080 being a, being a big part of it. Um, the, many, many, many of the government's failures on this

00:27:21.760 and, and, and failures in perception have been exposed and that has forced certain changes in

00:27:28.480 tone and language. Uh, the, um, uh, the, two U.S. administrations actually have recognized the

00:27:36.560 Uyghur genocide. Canada's parliament has recognized the Uyghur genocide. Uh, the government has,

00:27:41.840 has failed to provide that recognition, um, in terms of our own domestic security, right? Uh,

00:27:48.160 we haven't, we have not, uh, recognized yet that the, the security threat posed by, by Huawei,

00:27:54.640 the government says its decision with respect to Huawei is still, uh, still pending. So, um,

00:28:00.080 there are these, there are these key issues of substance, uh, protecting our own security,

00:28:04.560 defending our own interests, standing with our allies on issues of human rights where Canada, uh,

00:28:09.440 needs to step up and, and has not stepped up yet. Um, and I would say just protecting our own

00:28:15.040 security is in, in this context is, is a particularly urgent priority. Uh, the biggest security threat

00:28:21.200 facing Canada right now is foreign state back interference in our country. Uh, the, the sort 0.96

00:28:26.480 of silent invasion, uh, that one, one Australian writer, uh, described where, um, where the institutions of,

00:28:34.160 of, of, uh, uh, of, of a foreign state, you know, rather than, rather than rolling up, uh, with,

00:28:39.920 with tanks and flags on the beach, uh, are seeking to, uh, to, to bring institutions in other country,

00:28:47.040 on countries under their control. And, um, and, and we really need to wise up about this and respond

00:28:53.840 to it more effectively. Well, there, there have been, uh, there's been several books written about,

00:28:58.240 uh, Chinese spies and infiltration into Canada. Uh, we saw it, uh, flare up not too long ago in

00:29:04.640 Vancouver when, um, there were, you know, high school kids fighting over, um, you know, the

00:29:10.160 invasion of, um, or the, the changes of law in Hong Kong that will give China more autonomy. We see,

00:29:15.280 uh, pro China rallies in, in Vancouver frequently. So, uh, unfortunate stuff is definitely happening in

00:29:21.360 Canada. Well, Garnett, I really appreciate your time, really appreciate all your, uh, expertise and,

00:29:25.760 and shedding light on all of these issues to help us, uh, get a better understanding of what's

00:29:29.280 happening, uh, you know, inside Canada's, uh, foreign policy, um, area. So, so we really

00:29:35.360 appreciate you coming on the show and, um, wishing you a very Merry Christmas to you and your family.

00:29:40.560 Well, thank you so much. Merry Christmas to you. And I'll maybe just say in conclusion that

00:29:44.240 these foreign and security policy issues, um, they're not often top of mind for Canadians. Um,

00:29:50.960 but when something goes wrong in the world, uh, they can, they can move from low down the list

00:29:55.760 to the top of the list very, very quickly in terms of their significance and their impact.

00:29:59.760 So, uh, obviously, uh, you know, conservatives are working hard to hold the government accountable

00:30:03.760 on the economy, on inflation, uh, on, uh, on justice issues, on domestic freedoms issues.

00:30:09.040 Uh, but these, but these foreign, foreign affairs and, uh, and security issues, uh, they,

00:30:14.720 they have the potential to have a very significant impact, uh, on our, on our lives. And it's important

00:30:19.600 for us to be vigilant and asking the government questions about, about what their, their plans

00:30:24.000 are. So again, Merry Christmas to you and thanks for the opportunity.

00:30:26.800 All right. Thank you so much, Garnas, Janet, MP for the Conservative Party. I'm

00:30:31.200 Candice Malcolm, and this is the Candice Malcolm Show.

The Candice Malcolm Show - December 14, 2021

Canada’s insignificant role on the world stage

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript