Evidence of meeting #9 for Canada-China Relations in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chinese.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Christine Holke
Lobsang Sangay  Sikyong, President, Central Tibetan Administration
David Mulroney  Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

We'll now continue with Mr. Harris.

Mr. Harris, you have the floor for six minutes.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mulroney, for joining us. I think you will agree that we have a very complex task in front of us, dealing with the Canada-China relationship as a whole, and I don't think anyone could disagree with you that we have to be smart when we're dealing with international relations, particularly with a country as complex as China.

We're trying to put all the pieces together, I guess, and it's pretty clear that we need to have a new relationship with China. The old one is still kind of reaching out to us, though, and I want to draw your attention to something that may prevent us from being as independent as we'd like to be, which is an agreement that was negotiated, I think, while you were the ambassador to China. I think it has a couple of names, but it mostly goes under Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, which was decried as being one-sided towards China. That binds us for over 31 years and is a version of chapter 11. It is one-sided towards China, and it was negotiated in secret, with no consultation. I think there was one hour of discussion in Parliament.

How are we going to be constrained by that in the future, when we're talking about heavy investment by China, particularly in mining and western Canada energy projects?

5:25 p.m.

Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

David Mulroney

I think things we rely on, which went into the consideration of this, are the net benefit and national security provisions that are part of the Investment Canada Act. We don't have to take actions that are against our national interest, and I think as we see more of China's intentions, whether they be control of strategic minerals or rather untoward and somewhat unsettling interest in the north, in the Arctic, there's more reason to apply those principles.

What I think the investment agreement was designed to do was to try to level the playing field for Canadian companies that had been treated abominably in China, and it did that to a certain extent, but I think the more robust application of net benefit and national security, as long as the government is willing to do it, guards us against Chinese investments that clearly are not in our interest.

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Well, sir, that's not the assessment of the very well-known trade lawyer, who talked about it as one of the most seriously one-sided agreements in Canadian trade history, but I hope you're right. We haven't seen the full effects of it yet, and we'll have a long time to wait.

I agree with you on the foreign influence transparency business. That has to be addressed—and unfortunately it hasn't been yet—by China and by other countries. We've seen the example today of the Saudi government state actors or proxies interfering inside Canada, and that's something we ought to address very, very quickly.

As you pointed out, we've had the experience of China being very heavy-handed with individual countries. I have in front of me an excerpt from the deal with Norway. When a Nobel Prize was awarded to a Chinese person imprisoned for eight years, China had nothing to do with Norway, and then in order to get back in its graces, Norway had to sign an agreement:

The Norwegian Government reiterates its commitment to the one-China policy, fully respects China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, attaches high importance to China's core interests and major concerns, will not support actions that undermine them, and will do its best to avoid any future damage to the bilateral relations.

That's a very strong act of humiliation in order to restart that free trade agreement. That China has that kind of power over a country like Norway, which is normally independent and self-sufficient, shows that there has to be more than just an agreement among nations; there has to be a real coalition to act against China.

Would you happen to agree with that, that we have to get countries like Norway and Canada and whatever others we can get together to counterbalance the Chinese power?

5:30 p.m.

Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

David Mulroney

Absolutely. In the Chinese action, one of the immediate effects you saw was a dramatic decrease in exports of Norwegian salmon to China and a dramatic increase in exports of Scottish salmon to China. Here are two European countries with pretty close relations that were unable to coordinate. This is the kind of thing that's difficult to do among countries, but it's not impossible. I always believe that you can look at all the reasons not to do something, but if we could improve it by 15% or 20%, wouldn't we be better off than we are now? I think that is possible. It's time to strike.

What happens so often with our China dialogues is that we all acknowledge the problem, but then there's the “but” or “on the other hand” and we get back to the kind of robotic diplomacy on auto pilot, which says we just better go along with everything that China is saying and doing. This is a chance. In this period when China has provoked so much unrest in so many places, this is our opportunity to build some alliances, and I think Norway would probably be one of the countries we would want to talk to.

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Can I reference your comments about the United Nations? I'm a little disturbed to hear you say that we should downplay that involvement in multilateralism, particularly when China is exerting such heavy influence there.

Yes, we have to work together to counterbalance China and the new world that we have, but surely the United Nations is a forum whereby all sorts of other countries are active and important to have relationships with. I'm very surprised for a diplomat to say that the United Nations is no longer an apparently valid multinational forum.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. That's the end of your time.

I'm sorry, Mr. Mulroney. You'll have to wait and maybe you'll have another chance to answer that when someone else comments or asks a question.

We're on to the second round.

Mr. Williamson, you have five minutes.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ambassador Mulroney, we actually met 20 years ago in your office in Taipei. I was covering the Taiwanese election there. I think that place remains the truest expression of Chinese democracy, and it's on display every number of years for the world to see that democracy is alive and well in Taiwan.

I'm curious. You've had a long career in mainland China and Taiwan, and you're familiar with the area. Have your views evolved in terms of Taiwan? Looking back 20 years, and before that, how have your views concerning mainland China and Beijing changed over the years, or perhaps they have not?

5:35 p.m.

Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

David Mulroney

If I could just respond to Mr. Harris, I think he may not have heard me correctly. What I said was that I thought that our multi-year, multi-million dollar campaign for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council wasn't the best use of or the best priority for Canadian diplomacy, and I don't withdraw that.

Working in Taiwan and running our office there was one of the most inspiring experiences of my diplomatic career. Let's just note here that this week we're mourning the passing of Lee Teng-hui, who was really the father of democracy in Taiwan.

I got to meet and see lots of people. I was there when Kuomintang was defeated and the Democratic Progressive Party came to power. It was a very inspiring time and it was impossible not to feel excited.

I also recognize that there are some things.... We have to be careful in terms of how we support Taiwan, because there are some things that would—even though it's inhuman to think about this—provoke China to attack Taiwan. There are red lines that we need to observe.

The reality, though, is that Canada is nowhere near any of those red lines. We're entirely passive in our approach to Taipei. With a little creativity, we could be supporting one of the great democratic success stories, and one with some really interesting links to Canadian history—think of the story of Dr. George Leslie Mackay, who was a hero in Taiwan. It was an inspiring time.

I would add that one of the lessons we should take from Hong Kong is that Hong Kong is where it is now because, for two decades, Hong Kong's elite sold it out, and the countries that should have supported it didn't support it sufficiently. We were one of those countries.

The next focus will be Taiwan. This is the time to be supporting Taiwan thoughtfully.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

I appreciate that and agree with that.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that there would be an economic cost to a divergence from mainland China. I think that's true. Could you talk as well about the costs to Canada in terms of our values, and even economic costs, of continuing on the path we're on, where we're afraid to speak out and the prospect of more trade is more alluring to our business elites?

5:35 p.m.

Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

David Mulroney

First, I think it's interesting to see that although Australia has been even more outspoken than we are and is more exposed, it's not clear that it has suffered economically. China often encourages us to fear the worst, but I think over the long haul we have what China needs, so I'm a little bit less concerned about that.

If we look at things like China's demands in the case of Ms. Meng Wanzhou, saying yes to a “prisoner exchange”, which is again a form of normalizing what China has done, would essentially make it more likely rather than less likely that China would do the same thing to us again in the future. It's just unacceptable.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

You would agree, then, that a sheepish policy towards Beijing has only served to embolden them and to cause us economic difficulties, economic harm. China thinks that because we are sheep dressed up in sheep clothing, we will not do anything, and they feel they have the freedom to push us around.

5:35 p.m.

Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

David Mulroney

Yes. It's always—

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

In 10 seconds, please.... I'm sorry.

Thank you very much.

Now we have Ms. Zann for five minutes.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Mulroney.

Many observers have noted that the former Conservative government had a shift in its approach to China in the last years of its mandate. You were ambassador from 2009 to 2012. Could you tell us, perhaps, about your efforts to deepen our commercial relationship with China back then? Here in Nova Scotia, of course, we have a major supply of lobster, seafood and other things going to China. Our governments have really increased our exports.

I'm curious to know whether you ever pushed back on your superiors at that time for tougher stances and not pursuing a friendlier stance. What has actually changed since you were ambassador?

5:40 p.m.

Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

David Mulroney

I should say that one of my favourite success stories in China was the success story of Clearwater Fine Foods of Nova Scotia, which moved from selling lobster as a commodity to selling lobster as a delicacy, with a Canadian flag on the claw.

I'm very proud of the fact that the message I took to Ottawa when I was ambassador and within the embassy, where I had people from a dozen Canadian departments and agencies and provinces and our security establishment, was that we needed to see China as all of a piece. It's an important market for us, but even then, and we were talking frankly about this, it was an increasing challenge to Canada and posing an increasing threat to many Canadians and Canadian values and interests.

I'm proud that we went out to.... I was told a number of times and harangued by Chinese officials not to say and do things, not to go and see the families of detained Canadians. We sent our diplomats out to see someone who was under house arrest, where they got roughed up. A number of times I was followed in western Xinjiang for going to see human rights champions. I'm proud that on the front of religious freedom, we opened the embassy to mass when the international Catholic community had no place to go. We had about 200 people from around the world coming into the embassy, and very gratefully.

My message—I spoke to deputy ministers on a regular basis—is that the security people need to be talking to the economic people. This is a challenge like no challenge we've seen before. Sometimes we can't say yes to every economic opportunity if it is threatening. Not every idea is a good idea. At the same time, with the security people, saying no to everything doesn't always make sense either.

It's a new kind of diplomacy, a much more challenging kind of diplomacy, but I think we're capable of achieving it. I think we did for a time, when I was there. That was very important to me.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Thank you.

Of course, all of us are concerned about human rights issues. We've been talking a lot about them already today, with regard to the Uighurs and also the Tibetans. When it comes to your advocating for a tougher stance now, though, are you advocating for a full decoupling of the Canadian economy from China, or are you suggesting that we should continue? What would be the consequences, do you think, for the Canadian economy, including Canadian exporters like Nova Scotia and Canadian consumers, if we actually decoupled our economy and pulled back?

5:40 p.m.

Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

David Mulroney

First of all, while this involves speaking out on human rights issues, my first priority, as you will have noticed from my remarks, is Canadian national security. China has picked up...and practised diplomacy by detention with Canadians. It has unjustly detained our citizens. It's interfering and harassing and threatening people at home, in Canada. It's stealing secrets. It's interfering on campuses. We need to speak out. We can't remain an autonomous sovereign country if we don't speak out honestly about that.

So yes, it's human rights, but increasingly—I've seen it in my own career—the theatre has moved from China into the international space. Now it's in Canada itself. I think we're capable of finding the courage to be honest and to say that—

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Sorry, but would you suggest that we stop trading with China entirely? What would happen if we did that?

5:40 p.m.

Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

David Mulroney

No, I wouldn't suggest that at all. I would say, though, that we need to look at—

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan

Thank you, Doctor. I apologize, but we have limited time for each person, as you have seen by now, I'm sure.

Now we're on to Mr. Albas for five minutes.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mulroney, for your past service and your ongoing engagement. I've heard you on a few different radio programs, as well as on a podcast. It's helpful to have a plethora of different views here, because the Canada-China relationship has many different components, as China expresses itself differently under the current leadership.

My concern is that you have made public statements in regard to the government and its interactions with you. In a Globe and Mail piece on July 24, 2019, you expressed the following regarding a request that was made to you by a public servant:

“I am deeply concerned about the way foreign policy is being managed, and don't wish to be silenced or co-opted,” Mr. Mulroney said. He added any effort to discourage Canadians with expertise in foreign relations from speaking freely is “fundamentally an undemocratic idea.”

I haven't heard very much from the government on this, other than it saying that no elected official caused that call to happen, but I'd like you to maybe take a moment to address that.

5:45 p.m.

Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual

David Mulroney

Sure. This is what happened. Last summer, I got a message from someone who was on the special China task force that had been set up to deal with the crisis. It's someone I had met with before, an old colleague. We exchanged ideas, and the message was, “Can we talk again?” I'm always happy to do that. I can tell them what I'm thinking and they can bounce ideas off me, because I spent five years running the branch that they're in. I am always happy to do that.

On the day of the call, I got a message saying, “Oh, Paul Thoppil is joining the call.” It was a little odd, but it was okay. At the start, Paul was very effusive, saying that he was running the branch, that he knew that I had run it in the past, and how honoured he was. It was even a little over the top, but I got a sense that the conversation was about to change. It wasn't going to be an exchange of ideas.

He then said, “Before you speak to the media, you should feel free to check your ideas with us and find out what we think.” I got a little mad just because of the way it was expressed, and I said, “Paul, what's the issue? Who asked you to call me?” He said that the issue was with comments I had made about the travel advisory and that the people in PMO were not happy. That's what happened.

I said, “Paul, I'm not going to do that. I'm happy to exchange ideas with you guys, but I'm not going to feel constrained to call you. I'm a private citizen now.” I said that because I think I know what the objective was. It's to kind of intimidate you before you put pen to paper.

So that's what happened. I was disturbed by it, and I've remained concerned. Paul, in his testimony, said that he calls people to compare notes and exchange ideas. That wasn't the nature of our conversation.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Have you had any similar conversations since?

5:45 p.m.

Former Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, As an Individual