Canada-China Relations Committee on Feb. 5th, 2020

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to be helpful on that one. I want to be prudent in terms of the specific discussions I had, so I'm going to get some advice, if I can, from GAC. I'm personally comfortable—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I certainly appreciate that. Parliamentary committees do have extensive powers, but I do appreciate your being co-operative in the matter. Thank you.

I'll pass it to Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Thank you, Ambassador, for being here.

I do want to drill down a little bit in terms of lessons learned. You did say that when being advised by other countries, partners and allies, one of the important lessons to be learned is not to be bullied. Frankly, Canadians feel like we're being bullied right now. We have the arbitrary detention of Canadian citizens. We have what seems to be arbitrary and nonsensical cutting out of our agricultural exports.

You mentioned pork. It's interesting that you believe that their allowing Canadian pork back into China was a good sign. Why did you say that?

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, as I said, I did hear from many different embassies and countries, first of all, on the notion of not being bullied, and I think that's about standing up. That's why the Prime Minister is not interested in doing prisoner swaps on that. It's about being clear; we have a system, and people say, “Stay, and you do do that”. And you move through it.

On agriculture, to your question—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

I wasn't clear on my question, I don't think. You said that it was a good sign. Most Canadians believe that it was an arbitrary decision for the Chinese simply to shut it out. It was for ulterior reasons that they were shutting out Canadian pork. The Chinese made the case that they believe that it was because of a document issue.

Do you believe that it was done, that the ban was lifted because of reconciliation of the documents, or do you believe it was done because they decided to show some indication of good will?

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, this is an area that I've delved into quite deeply with the industry, the Canadian Meat Council.

The view is that a mistake was made. It was not seen as an arbitrary shift.

If I might just finish, the issue was then being able to try to get that so that it stopped. Because there were no discussions, we then couldn't figure out how to resolve it. As the discussions moved on, we were able to resolve it, and it's in China's interest, but it was stuck. It was a mistake. It was stuck, and now I think, through very good efforts from the meat council and others in the industry, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and everyone, they were able to get it sorted.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

We have a major issue, and it's an ongoing crisis with the canola exports. Where are we with that?

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Pardon me. Again, the vast majority of Canadians, especially Canadian farmers, believe this is arbitrary and has nothing to do with the canola, but is simply retaliation for a relationship gone sideways.

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, the first thing I'd say is that anyone who knows me knows how passionate I am about the ag food industry, so I have a very strong personal interest in that. There's a very significant opportunity.

I do think it was a punishment, if you will. They stopped it. As I said, we've gone to the WTO. That has led to what I think are some constructive discussions, technical discussions that we're having, so it's moving forward. At the end of the day, the results matter, but there's momentum.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Oh, yes, results do matter.

In terms of lessons learned, you said that we shouldn't be bullied. Now you've admitted that this is definitely one example of being bullied.

Obviously, you've talked about WTO challenges. Those are very lengthy and very costly, and we don't have time on our side when it comes to the exports in this industry. What other types of leverage do you believe that Canada has to try to break free from this punishing ban?

[Dominic Barton]

I think, Mr. Chair, that the WTO is the vehicle that we have for going through it. What we have to say is that food security matters a lot to China, and if you think about the protein demands on the meat and the vegetable side, we are going to be a critical source of where that is. If Canadian farmers are nervous—and they are, even on the meat side—about committing, just in case something goes on, that supply is not going to come in.

What we're doing is saying is.... First of all, we didn't do something else to try to get the canola. We've gone to use the mechanisms that we have. Then we're saying, “You need to be careful,” on the Chinese side, “because we are a high-quality, safe food supplier.” What this does is make people very nervous about piling in behind it, and we're explaining that to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

Ms. Zann.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for being here. It's been extremely interesting listening to you and hearing your own perspective of what's going on in China. I'm very glad to hear that you are a big believer in the culture as well.

As somebody who has been involved with culture here in Canada, I really believe in cross-laterally talking with people, bringing in plays, ballets and things like this, so thank you for your efforts.

I do want to talk about a December 2019 editorial by the current and former presidents of the International Crisis Group. They said the following about their colleague, Mr. Kovrig:

Although China has never spelled out the reasons for Michael's imprisonment, it is clear that he is merely a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.

At the same time, they cautioned against the adoption of “a far more aggressive approach toward China” and noted:

...Beijing has a critical role to play not only in its own Asian neighborhood but elsewhere as well, including in preventing, mitigating and resolving deadly conflict—across the globe from Central Asia to the Korean Peninsula, from Afghanistan to Venezuela, from Sudan to Zimbabwe.

As ambassador, can you please explain to us why engagement is the best approach to managing bilateral and multilateral relations with China?

[Dominic Barton]

A few quick things....

I'm glad on the cultural side. I think we always underestimate that, and I can't tell you the number of people in the film industry, arts and music who are doing things. Those are, again, important for the relationship.

I think, again, precisely because China is playing a bigger role in the world, we need to engage with them in areas. If you think about Africa, if you think about peacekeeping, or if you think about disaster relief, there is a lot of interest that the Red Cross Society of China has with the Canadian Red Cross because of our capabilities. They're impressed with how we do disaster relief.

As we have, unfortunately, more disasters in the world, when looking at how countries co-operate—they have a lot of resources; we have a lot of capabilities—there are many areas where we can do things together.

Even with this coronavirus and pandemics, we, as a country, have a real depth in understanding how those work, and I think there are opportunities to collaborate. That is what I think I would say.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you.

I notice that the Chinese officials thanked Canada for the way we have reacted to the coronavirus, in that we have not reacted in the same way as the United States, for instance, or Australia. I believe that, again, shows this spirit of co-operation that is so important in this global world.

In a 2017 speech to Universities Canada, you described three global shifts that are under way right now: an economic power shift from the west to primarily Asia, but also to Africa, primarily Nigeria; the technical revolution, for instance computing power, connectedness, big data and artificial intelligence; and the need for a new societal deal that would address such economic forces as automation, which we all know is going to be a big thing in the future.

Would you say still that the economic power is continuing to shift from western countries to those in Asia? What key forces are driving China's economic rise, and are those forces sustainable?

[Dominic Barton]

I very much believe in that economic power shift. As I said, we're 15 years in, and we have a long period to go. It's driven by a combination of population, the young population of a huge middle class, of well over 1.5 billion new middle class coming into the system. In a sense, it's a re-rise of this part of the world, and it's driven by urbanization—China has a long way to go on urbanization—and a shift in the economy to the service sector.

That's happening in other parts. It's happening in Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and as I mentioned, Nigeria and East Africa. These represent opportunities for Canada, and we have a good reputation because of our standards and how we do human rights, how we follow the law. We're highly respected. We just need to get out there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You have 15 seconds for a final comment.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

There is one thing I just want to note. You did note the aging population, and that is becoming a problem in China, just as it is in Japan and in Nova Scotia.

How does that play into this economic thrust?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In three or four words, please, Ambassador.

[Dominic Barton]

The world is aging. We're all going to have to deal with this. We can learn from each other.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Ms. Zann.

Before we continue, I want to say that we started the meeting at 5:35 p.m., and that we took a 10-minute break. We'll keep going until 7:45 p.m.

Mr. Bergeron, you have two and a half minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

You're too generous, Mr. Chair.

When the Prime Minister publicly insisted that he expected the United States to intervene to secure the release of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, a Chinese foreign affairs official immediately stepped in and said not to try to put pressure on China through a third party. However, the Department of Foreign Affairs maintains, as you did a few moments ago, that it's a good strategy to seek support in other countries.

As long as we know that China is taking offence at this type of tactic, how can we be sure that it's a good strategy to change the situation for the better?

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, this is a very interesting question.

I think we do have a triangle here with China, Canada and the United States. We know there are lots of trade tensions going on between China and the U.S. There are lots of different views within the U.S. administration as to whether or not it is a trade deal, or.... There are a lot of issues going on, and we're caught up in it because we're an ally of the United States and we also want to trade and do things with China.

My view is that we have to recognize a reality that there are those dimensions happening together that we have to factor in. I think we will talk to the United States about this and we have to be clear about it. What China reacts to most negatively is if it's a finger-wagging with nothing else, which is not that helpful, right? That's their sense of it, right?

I think what we have to say again as we're thinking about this whole situation is that there are three parties involved. The Prime Minister is being quite vocal with the President in saying, “We've followed the rule of law on this extradition, so what are you doing on this side?” It's not saying, “Do X, Y, Z”. It's saying, “What are you doing about it?” I think that's a healthy thing.