Canada-China Relations Committee on June 17th, 2024

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

As has the United States, by the way.

[David Morrison]

Yes.

According to the Government of Canada, the one China policy has served Canada's interests very well for all of those years since 1970. The policy explicitly suggests that no party, neither the PRC nor Taiwan, should make unilateral changes to the existing situation, which does have some ambiguity built into it but has worked, I would argue—we would argue—for both China and the PRC for a very long time.

If you look at progress that both entities have made since 1970.... We believe in the maintenance of the status quo, which is to say that we will not deviate from our one China policy, and we are not in favour of unilateral actions by either side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Ms. McPherson, you have two and a half minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, again, to our witnesses for being here today.

Ambassador, obviously, one of the biggest stories that is happening in Canada right now has to do with foreign interference. We have received a pretty explosive report that says that there are sitting MPs who have wittingly or unwittingly been involved. We know that the Conservative leadership race was implicated in being influenced by the PRC.

What conversations are happening right now with representatives in China about this influence?

[Jennifer May]

Mr. Chair, we raise our concerns around foreign interference regularly, and the Chinese side regularly denies that it is taking place. We continue to raise the concerns. They watch closely what is happening in Canada. They have recently named an ambassador, who is new on the ground. I know that he will be paying very close attention as well and will be reporting back on this issue to his authorities back in Beijing.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We look at this as an attack on our democracy, of course, but there is also influence and interference in our institutions and our communities.

This committee did a study on the Chinese police stations. The University of Alberta is in my riding. We know post-secondary institutions are at risk, perhaps because there is not sufficient regulation in place.

I understand raising it, but what will those next steps look like, from your perspective, from the Government of Canada?

[Jennifer May]

Mr. Chair, I would defer to Deputy Minister Morrison to respond further to this point.

[David Morrison]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The issue, as it has just been stated, is of central concern to all of us. It featured heavily in my visit to Beijing, and I know all of the issues around foreign interference will be part of my dialogue with the incoming ambassador.

The government, as I think the committee is aware, has recently tabled legislation in Bill C-70 that will shore up the home game. It will help Canada's more domestically oriented ministries and institutions protect themselves from foreign interference from whichever country it emanates. We in the foreign ministry will play a supporting role, including by making this part of our ongoing dialogue with our Chinese counterparts at all levels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

We'll now go to five minutes for Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much.

Thanks to our witnesses for being here.

We've seen a troubling trend under this Liberal government with its appeasement of authoritarian regimes. We saw gas turbines that benefited Russia, funding the war machine against Ukraine. We saw recent reports of one of our ships docking beside Russian ships in Havana, Cuba. We have participation in a council that seems to simply give credentials to a country that really does not have much to brag about when it comes to the environment.

I'm wondering if I could hear first from Madam Ambassador and then from Mr. Morrison. Has concern been raised that our participation in a council like the one Minister Guilbeault attended would legitimize China in a way that allows it to cover up some of its bad actions, particularly when it comes to the environment in this case? I know human rights have been raised as well.

Madam Ambassador can go first.

[Jennifer May]

Mr. Chair, the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development, as it has been stated, is a very long-standing organization that provides policy advice to China from the international community.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Is there concern that it's legitimizing the People's Republic of China's bad actions when it comes to its lack of action on the environment? Yes or no is fine.

[Jennifer May]

Mr. Chair, the council provides advice. At the end of the day, the Chinese government decides whether it takes that advice. What it does is very publicly make clear what the—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much.

I would just note, given that China doesn't have a carbon tax, it's one of those things for which there is, I think, valid concern that Canada's participation in Minister Guilbeault's $140,000 trip legitimizes some of these bad actions.

I'll hand my time over to Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Morrison, I'd like to go back to something you said, I think, in an exchange with Ms. McPherson. You said that on the issue of Taiwan, we're upholding the one China policy, but could I hear you talk about Hong Kong?

The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, the Basic Law, is being violated right now. They have jailed activists and legislators. They've pursued them overseas. They have levied fines. They shut down Apple Daily. Journalists from that newspaper have fled. Some have come to Canada.

Is it still, in your view and in the view of the Government of Canada, truly one China, two systems, or is it one China, one system now, specifically when it comes to Hong Kong?

[David Morrison]

The government has made its views on the shrinking democratic space in Hong Kong very well known, that was one country, two systems, according to the Sino-British agreement of 1984, and it was then rolled into the actual handover from the U.K. to China in 1997.

Where China has violated its undertakings and those violations have increased and become more concerning, certainly since the crackdown on protests in 2019, the passing of legislation in both 2020 and 2024, and most recently, the conviction of a large number of pro-democracy and human rights activists, at each and every turn, Canada has called out violations of the fundamental agreement, and we have been active as well via our consul general in Hong Kong with the Chinese authorities.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Morrison, is it still the policy of the Government of Canada that there is indeed one China, two systems, or is that gone in the view of the government?

I noticed on your website, it says the extradition treaty has been suspended. Yes, you've raised the issue, but does Foreign Affairs, GAC, still believe that there is one China, two systems, specifically in the case of Hong Kong, or is that not the case anymore?

[David Morrison]

I believe that is a question best put to the political level, which would make a pronouncement on such issues. What I have said is—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Would it be your advice to the minister?

[David Morrison]

My advice to the minister is not something that I share with this committee, with all respect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

And with that, we'll say, nice try, Mr. Kmiec.

We'll go to Mr. Oliphant now for five minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Deputy and Ambassador, for being here. You're both consummate public servants.

I, for one, Deputy, am very glad you're not deputy minister of labour or trade, and I'm very glad you're deputy minister for foreign affairs.

It's very clear in the Indo-Pacific policy that we refer to China as an increasingly disruptive global power. You have used the expression, “eyes wide open”, and I'd like to pick your brain a little bit about defensive and offensive.

We have coercive diplomacy, we have arbitrary detention, we have foreign interference and we also have huge opportunities that could cost Canadians opportunities if we don't address how we engage with them.

How do you balance the defensive with the disruptive power and the offensive, and it includes also the very offensive with the human rights agenda we carry, but also the opportunities that we have?

[David Morrison]

Conducting diplomacy is like conducting any kind of relationship. You have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, so with our closest allies we also have challenges and we have to go on the offence, and in some cases we have to play defence.

That is much more the case with China than it used to be. As everyone knows, there has been a divergence in how China has developed vis-à-vis how many commentators thought it would develop as it adopted many market-based policies. In the recent decade, as I tried to say, it has been increasingly divergent from the path that many of us hoped it would be on. So yes, we do have to play offence when our....The framework that we tend to use is the one that Ambassador May already outlined, and the EU uses it and the Americans use it to a certain extent.

Think in terms of three Cs. We compete where we can. Think of that in terms of the G7 trying to compete with China on an infrastructure offering for the developing world. We challenge where we need to. Think of that as human rights and the other areas where we have fundamental disagreements with China. And we co-operate where we can; that's across the range of bilateral, multilateral, and geopolitical issues.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I often add “coexist”.

[David Morrison]

Coexist, sure....