COLUMN: On Parliament Hill – Questioning forced labour in China

In the 2025 election, Mark Carney, unequivocally stated that Canada’s greatest threat was China. He seems to have flip flopped in recent weeks with the announcement of 49,000 Chinese EV’s gaining entry into the Canadian automotive sector.

Last week, a Liberal member of parliament cast doubt that forced labour exists in China. During a parliamentary committee hearing last week, Liberal MP Michael Ma challenged expert witness Dr. Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, questioning whether her testimony relied merely on “hearsay” or whether she had personally witnessed conditions in China.

Let’s be clear, this is not a disputable issue.

In September 2021, all parties and their members in the House of Commons voted unanimously to recognize People’s Republic of China (PRC) forced labour of Uyghurs, including genocide. Numerous international investigations from governments, academics, and human rights organizations have reached the same conclusion. Following parliament’s decision, the government of Canada imposed sanctions on one PRC entity and four PRC officials in Xinjiang “for gross human rights violations”. These sanctions remain in place today.

Furthermore, recent years have only compounded our fears about Beijing’s conduct. It was China that held Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor—the “Two Michaels”—for over 1,000 days on questionable accusations.

At the committee, Dr. McCuaig-Johnston testified that dozens of components in Chinese electric vehicles contain aluminum linked to Uyghur forced labour. She cited a 2024 report from Human Rights Watch indicating that these supply chains extend beyond Chinese brands and may include vehicles produced by manufacturers operating in China.

The purpose of parliamentary committees is to scrutinize policy and defend Canadian interests. Yet, Mr. Ma’s line of questioning toward Dr. McCuaig-Johnston, a credible witness, appeared to be defending another country.

In response to MP Ma’s implication and question about the basis of her knowledge, McCuaig-Johnston pointed to her extensive experience, including multiple visits to China since 1979 and close collaboration with Human Rights Watch researchers. Following the committee meeting, she offered to provide him with a copy of the report, to which he reportedly replied that he does not believe such reports.

The hearing also raised national-security concerns. Conservative MP Michael Guglielmin pressed further on Dr. McCuaig-Johnston’s warnings, asking about BYD software embedded in Chinese electric vehicles, which she testified can transmit data collected from cameras, microphones, and GPS systems back to Chinese servers. She testified that the risks are significant and informed the committee that the deal had been negotiated in what she described as a “cone of silence”. “The Canadian manufacturers were not involved at all.”

Only a year ago, in March of 2025, the former Industry Minister, François Champagne, in response to a question about whether the Liberal government would eliminate the 100 percent tariff stated, “We’re going to stand strong. We want to protect our industry. We want to protect our workers. We want to protect our communities.” His point was that China doesn’t respect the rules. When questioned about what has changed that would reverse a policy set only a year ago, McCuaig-Johnston said, “Nothing”. These vehicles are not only linked to forced labour but capable of transmitting data and undercut our auto sector. McCuaig-Johnston expressed surprise at Minister Champagne’s seemingly new position as she believes he is one of the most knowledgeable on risks with China at the Liberal cabinet table.

Chinese-made vehicles raise multiple concerns—human rights, data security, and economic competitiveness. Yet Canada now appears to be moving toward a strategic partnership with China under the federal government’s new automotive strategy announced in February 2026. The proposal would allow an initial quota of 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles annually, increasing by 2030, at a tariff rate far below previous protection.

That raises an uncomfortable question: was Mr. Ma expressing a personal view, or signalling a broader shift in the Liberal government’s posture toward China?

When asked by CBC whether forced labour exists in China, Mr. Ma replied that forced labour exists around the world—without directly addressing China itself.

Meanwhile, Chinese state-aligned media quickly highlighted the exchange. The National Post reported that Chinese outlets praised the intervention, suggesting a member of Canada’s governing party was echoing Beijing’s narrative.

Despite the controversy, political life in Ottawa moved on quickly. A Liberal fundraising event proceeded days later, tickets priced at $1,775 per person, with little indication that the issue had unsettled the government.

But Canadians deserve clarity. Parliament has already spoken unanimously on forced labour in China. The question now is whether Canada’s policy—and its political leadership—still stand behind that consensus.