Canada-China Relations Committee on June 17th, 2024

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yet, that's what they do believe is happening.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Ms. McPherson, I'm sorry, but you are well out of time.

We will now go to Mr. Kmiec again for five minutes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just so you know, I'll be passing some of my time to Mr. Seeback.

I'll go back to Mr. Morrison. Canada helped establish the China council in 1992, and we've been one of the lead international donors to the China council since its inception.

I was looking at the MOU on my phone here, and it says that Environment and Climate Change Canada contributed about $8 million in phase 6. I've quoted back to you the 114 gigawatts of coal power being put online in 2023 and 104 gigawatts of power in 2022. That's coal power, again, and the Global Energy Monitor says that, because of those, the PRC will not be able to meet any of its 2025 climate change goals.

You've kept talking about duality and these two sides and that we can “solve problems together.” However, wouldn't it be fair, then, to say and for Canada to admit that the PRC is using this council and the environment minister's continued presence on the council as a form of greenwashing of the PRC's environmental record?

[David Morrison]

Mr. Chair, as I've said in the past, the China council goes back some decades, as has just been pointed out, to 1992. I think governments of all stripes have found it a useful forum in which to engage with China on all manner of environmental issues, be they climate change, biodiversity or the full gamut of international issues. There's always the danger of greenwashing, but I believe that the China council has proven its worth over the past several decades.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

You have three minutes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'll pass it over to Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to go back to the Uyghur forced labour issue with you, Mr. Morrison.

Article 23.6 of CUSMA says, “each Party shall prohibit the importation of goods into its territory...produced in whole or in part by forced...labor”. Therefore, we have an obligation. It says “shall prohibit”. It's mandatory.

The next section says, “the Parties shall establish cooperation for the identification and movement of goods produced by forced labor”. The United States has an entities list. It's published, it's available and I could pull it up right now. It says that you cannot accept goods into the United States from these companies. They've seized $5 billion worth of goods the last time I checked.

Canada, under this government, has seized nothing—zero.

Why are we not just using or taking something from the entities list and sharing and establishing co-operation like we're required to under CUSMA? That would be a simple solution to this.

[David Morrison]

Mr. Chair, I think those questions would be better put to our colleagues from the international trade side of things or from the labour side of things.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

You're the deputy minister, so these things all ultimately fall to you. We have an agreement with the United States that's going to come up for review in about a year and a half, and we are clearly not meeting our obligations on forced labour.

You talked about dual purpose. There's a dual purpose in this Liberal government. They talk about doing something on forced labour, but the deliverables are absolutely zero in comparison with our United States counterparts.

The department could easily adopt an entities list and share the information that's available, and, actually, our trade agreement with the United States says we should.

You're the deputy minister. Why would we not be doing this? What's the great fear of actually doing something to stop the importation of goods? Canada's being called a dumping ground for goods made with forced labour. Why is there no action?

[David Morrison]

With respect, Mr. Chair, I'm the deputy minister of foreign affairs and not the deputy minister of trade or the deputy minister of labour, and both of those people would be more competent than I at answering the question.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Then you don't have any understanding at all of why this is not moving forward and why there have been no goods seized.

[David Morrison]

My understanding is that this is under active review, that CBSA will play a role in the seizures and that, when the regime is up and running, it will fulfill our CUSMA commitments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback. We are now out of time for you.

We will now go to Ms. Yip for five minutes.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador May, for coming so early, and to Deputy Minister Morrison for coming, on the opposite side, so late. I do appreciate the Chinese characters on your backdrop. It's quite nice to see.

Some of my constituents are saddened by the state of the Canada-China relations. They will come up to me and ask that everyone, please, have better relations. They want everyone to get along. How would you address that?

I'm going to ask both of you that question.

Ambassador May.

[Jennifer May]

Mr. Chair, there is very much a desire to make as much out of this relationship at this moment in time as we possibly can. I believe that is the underpinning of Minister Joly's approach toward pragmatic diplomacy.

As outlined in the Indo-Pacific strategy and in our overall approach to China, this involves, at times, co-operating with China, as we've discussed, on issues like the environment or other global areas of concern, such as non-proliferation, and areas where we can find common ground. It also means challenging China on areas such as human rights. It means also competing with China, in particular in the economic sphere. It really means having a fully comprehensive, wide approach and encouraging people-to-people relations, to have as much of that basis of common understanding and co-operation as we possibly can.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Morrison.

[David Morrison]

I think Ambassador May has set the table as to what we're trying to achieve, and I agree it would be nice if everyone got along. However, as I said in my prepared remarks, Canada and China see the world very differently. We've already spoken this evening about some of the areas in which we just frankly disagree: on forced labour, on the shrinking of the democratic space in Hong Kong and on some of China's approaches to international issues. But as I also tried to say in my opening remarks, we need to deal with China. It's a consequential country globally, and it's consequential to Canada for the reasons that we have been outlining.

We'll do it with eyes wide open. That doesn't mean everyone will get along, but as diplomats, we believe it's better to engage than not engage.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Do you feel that the Canadian government's pragmatic diplomacy toward China has been effective?

[David Morrison]

I would say it is becoming effective. I was bemused to see that my visit in April was featured in the national newspaper. There have been ongoing talks between Canada and China before, during, and after the Michaels. Minister Guilbeault went last fall, as we know. Minister Joly spoke with her counterpart for two hours in January, and saw him in Munich in February. She has spoken in person or on the phone with her counterpart five times since 2022. As was mentioned by Ambassador May, Minister Blair recently sat with his counterpart in Singapore.

I would say we are on track to a different kind of relationship than we had at the end of the Michaels saga, for reasons everybody will understand. From December 2018 until the end of September 2021, we had a pretty narrow focus in our relations. It's taken some time to put things back together after that.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Ambassador May, there's been significant news coverage of Hong Kong's national security law, article 23. You were previously posted in Hong Kong. How have things changed, and what can the Canadian government do to address these issues?

[Jennifer May]

Mr. Chair, there has been very significant change in China. As the member noted, the introduction in 2020 of the national security law for Hong Kong and recently the article 23 legislation really bring to the fore those significant changes. This is an area of great concern. We are raising these concerns with both authorities in Beijing and authorities in Hong Kong.

We are very concerned, and we are doing what we can in order to make sure that there's prominence and understanding that these are significant concerns for the Government of Canada and the people of Canada, that Canada has had a very significant stake in Hong Kong over decades in terms of the large number of Canadians of Hong Kong origin and the large number of Hong Kong residents who are Canadian citizens. This is a significant relationship. This legislation directly impacts Canadians, and we're very concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken Hardie]

Thank you, Ambassador May.

Thank you, Ms. Yip.

We'll now go to Mr. Bergeron for two and a half minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For Mr. Morrison's benefit, by “calling them out” I meant “challenging them”.

It is a bit rich to hear our Conservative colleague criticize the People's Republic of China for not meeting its climate change commitments, since Canada likely won't meet its targets either.

In its report on the situation in Taiwan, the committee made the following recommendation: “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”.

Global Affairs Canada's response was not that the department agreed with the recommendation, but that it took note of it. In its Indo-Pacific strategy, the United States indicates that the U.S. will work with Taiwan to ensure that its future is determined in accordance with the wishes of Taiwan's people.

Why is Canada so reluctant to simply recognize that Taiwan's future must be determined in accordance with the will of the Taiwanese?

[David Morrison]

Thank you for your question.

This is a very important issue.

As the committee knows, Canada has followed the one China policy since 1970.