Evidence of meeting #5 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.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
On that point about engagement, if you read the Globe and Mail, for example, there have been a number of op-eds calling—and it's not just politicians—for a much more confrontational approach.
However, you've pointed to the need to continue to engage Beijing, and the fact—as you've highlighted here today—that positives can come out of engagement. Can you talk about how that could help to overcome the current impasse we're in?
6:05 p.m.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the People's Republic of China
It is important to engage. I remember clearly, from talking to Singaporeans, that you need to have some relevance to be able to get things done. It's not just the economic relevance; it's the trust and linkages that people have built in what they're doing.
I think it's important to do that.
I know there are different views. I know there are views about, "Let's go hard line, and let's cut everything off.” The question there is to be prepared for what you ask for in that type of an approach. I don't think we have to go that way. There are a lot of reasonable people we can interact with.
Again, what I've learned and heard from other countries that are going through similar processes is that engagement is important.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
That is not to the exclusion of human rights then.
6:10 p.m.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the People's Republic of China
Absolutely not. As I said, you can be very strict and strong in how you feel and say it.
Some might say, “We're in the freezer box in terms of our linkage, so why would you even say anything?” I think that's exactly the time to say it. We're not going to stop. It's there.
That's important, because when we re-engage, we want to make sure we're re-engaging in the right way, for the long term. That's something that the Prime Minister feels very strongly about.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
In five seconds, you talked about common objectives where we can work together. I quoted directly from your opening statement. If there is another round, I'd like to ask you more about that. I think that's really important to emphasize.
That's not to minimize at all the current challenges we're facing. Of course, Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor are facing real difficulties, and their families are concerned, as are Canadians. However, we have to keep in mind the importance of the relationship as well.
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Your Excellency, thank you for joining us today.
You said at the start that you take every opportunity to meet with Canadian citizens who are currently detained. Please convey our thoughts to them. All the members of this committee are deeply concerned about their situation. I would greatly appreciate it if you could express to them our solidarity regarding their situation at this time.
Mr. Chair, I won't hide my unease with the way that the work of this committee is proceeding. Quite honestly, it seems that the worst thing to do, under the current circumstances, is to undermine the credibility of the person representing Canada before the Chinese authorities.
On the contrary, Your Excellency, I believe that your experience and your work to date amply qualify you for your sensitive mission. We need only look at the fact that, as soon as you were appointed, the downward spiral in relations between Canada and China came to a halt. Fairly quickly, we were able to restore pork exports to China.
Some may say that the Chinese had no other choice because domestic production, given the swine flu, wasn't enough to meet the demand. However, the fact remains that there was a change in attitude. I know that your visits with detained Canadians are having a very positive impact. I want to thank you for this.
This brings me to my question. Your presence in China, in addition to your calibre as a person, your experience and your knowledge of Chinese cultural dynamics, has had all the effects that I just described. Isn't this the most tangible proof that the Government of Canada should have acted much faster to appoint an ambassador to Beijing, rather than waiting eight months during this long crisis before filling the position?
6:10 p.m.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the People's Republic of China
Mr. Chair, thanks for the comments and the questions. It is much appreciated, and I will definitely pass on the remarks to Michael Spavor, Michael Kovrig, and also Robert Schellenberg. It means a lot to hear that this committee is hearing how people feel about that.
With regard to the question of appointing an ambassador, I wasn't part of the process. What I would say is that the fact that both ambassadors were appointed at the same time is a small step, but it was a signal that we wanted to be able to move forward.
What I would say is that this chill in the relationship.... We're angry. We're very angry because of our people have been taken. China is very angry as well—furious. We're both furious. I'll just say that the first conversation I had there was probably one of the most unpleasant conversations I've ever had. I mean, the shaking and anger from there, and we were also.... So it wasn't a conversation; it was a two-way reading of things.
The dynamic was such that the government was trying to reach out. There wasn't any response in terms of where things were. There wasn't even a basis to have a discussion. It was really in Osaka that the Prime Minister, because of alphabetical order, was sitting beside the president and could say, “We have to get through this”.
I hope now that we do actually have some channels and can now have real conversations where we can interrupt each other, where we cannot just be angry, but can actually try to be constructive.
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We may have the opportunity to look back at the sequence of events that led to the arrest of Meng Wanzhou and at the ripple effect on Canadian citizens. We'll certainly look at that again.
I have two very simple questions.
First, to your knowledge, before making the decision to authorize the incarceration of Meng Wanzhou, did the Canadian government seek advice from the embassy?
Second, given the similar case of the Garratt couple in 2014, shouldn't we have been warned of what might happen?
6:15 p.m.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the People's Republic of China
Mr. Chair, on that one, I'm not aware of the actual conversations. I think the justice department came to sort of explain the process yesterday—before and how the process worked—but I wasn't part of those discussions on where it was, so I wouldn't be able to answer that.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Mr. Bergeron, your time is up. You may be able to continue later. Thank you.
February 5th, 2020 / 6:15 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ambassador Barton, for your opening remarks.
I want to echo Mr. Bergeron's comments and acknowledge your extraordinary efforts on a personal level in personally visiting Mr. Kovrig, Mr. Spavor and Mr. Schellenberg and offering them your support. It is very meaningful, and I've heard words to that effect, so thank you for doing that.
You were appointed, of course. I want to go into the effectiveness of some of the efforts internationally.
We may have a second round, Mr. Chair, and I hope we will in order to do some of that.
You were appointed only recently, in the middle of an election. You haven't appeared before a committee before, and this is the first opportunity for us to listen to you and to raise some things that have been raised in the public domain, of which I'm sure you're aware. As late as today, we had a release from Democracy Watch that suggests that your holdings, your history, your current holdings, those of your wife and her involvement in investments in the Asia-Pacific region give rise to a conflict of interest.
I don't want to get into blind trusts and any of those things because they are detailed and, potentially, would lead to a big discussion. I do just want to ask you this question because Canadians deserve an answer. What do you say to Canadians as to whether they should feel comfortable with you in this role, given the fact that it's been suggested that these involvements would lead you to be open to influence, given the suggestion that perhaps, consciously or unconsciously, your own approach and attitude in dealing with the Chinese on the issues may be influenced by your personal interests?
What do you say to Canadians about that criticism and that allegation? I want to give you an opportunity to respond to that.
6:15 p.m.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the People's Republic of China
The first thing I would say is that my integrity matters a lot to me. It matters a huge amount to me. What people say, or say I'm doing, matters. I've lived my life with the highest integrity. So at a personal level, I would just say that. There's a track record of people I've interacted with and worked with on that.
The second is that I've been extraordinarily diligent with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. From the very beginning, before this even happened, I said that I am proud that my wife works and this is a situation you need to be aware of. I was very transparent about any of the issues that I have, and so forth. I've tried to be up front about that and transparent on everything I've been involved in on it.
The third thing I would say is that from a financial point of view, I think it was John Manley who said, and I agree, that this is the stupidest economic decision I could have made in my life. I didn't do it for an economic reason. I did it for public service. I want to help. I feel I can help the country. I have no interest in making money from it. Any ideas about how I'm going to somehow.... It's foreign to me.
I am following every single rule. I want to be way far from the chalk line, if you will. Again, you can see it with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It's how I've lived my life. My objective here is that I want to restore the relationship. I want to get the two Michaels out and the Schellenberg situation sorted. That's what I want to try to achieve.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
There are a number of other issues dealing with your involvement in China with the McKinsey group, and some of your statements about being bullish on China, on the belt and road project, which some have suggested is contrary to Canada's interests in the Asia-Pacific region, and the notable comment about drinking the Kool-Aid about China and President Xi. Do you have any thoughts on that now that are different from what you expressed so effusively to the Council on Foreign Relations and others?
6:20 p.m.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the People's Republic of China
Yes. I would say a couple of things. One is that I'm very bullish on the growth of China. I think it's going to continue to move the urbanization, as I went through it.
Many of the comments I made were pre-2016, and I think things have changed. The world changes in where it is. If you asked me what I felt about China in 2003, or about what I wrote about or said in 2009, or what I thought about Poland and different.... Do you know what I mean? I do have views that I express. I don't hold them to the end of time. As I said in my opening remarks, again, I am amazed by the growth of where China is. I'm very concerned right now with the crackdown on dissent and where things are. I've been quite direct with government about saying that and how I feel.
I don't want to give you the sense that there's an inherent bias that everything's rosy and great, because that's not how—
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Okay.
You mentioned human rights. I want to raise another issue, which is about McKinsey having a seminar very close to the internment camp for Uighurs. Were you sensitive about human rights in that situation, or were you aware of it?
6:20 p.m.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Canada to the People's Republic of China
On that situation, I think Kevin Sneader, the managing partner, has come out to apologize on that side. They had no awareness at all on the McKinsey side that there was anything going on with the detention camps. If they had, they wouldn't have done it. So there's an apology for that having happened, and it wouldn't happen again. I would say that. That's how I view it.
It doesn't take me away from my role as ambassador for Canada to raise direct concerns on that issue with the Chinese government.