Canada-China Relations Committee on Feb. 24th, 2020

[Phil Calvert]

I believe now we should be very careful about entering into a free trade agreement with China. I think what has been demonstrated by China, especially in the last year with us, is that the rule of law continues to be a challenge. If you want to have a free trade agreement with a country, you have to have some confidence that it's going to implement its obligations bilaterally. I don't think this is the time, and frankly, I don't think there's a political will to do so anyway on the Canadian side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Go ahead, Ms. Yip.

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

My question is directed to Professor Evans. Thank you for staying up so late to participate.

In your statement you mentioned three strategies or recommendations Canada could consider. Could you elaborate on what you meant by flexible policy framework?

[Prof. Paul Evans]

This has to do with the matter of how we define China on a spectrum: from a friend, to a partner, to a rival, to an adversary, to an enemy. Where on that spectrum do we do it? I'm suggesting that it depends on the issue that we're dealing with regarding China, and that no one hat fits all wearers. As we move forward with China, we have to see that we have a variety of interests: the commercial, the international agenda we're pushing, the development objectives we would like to see in the world. China is multiple things at the same time.

This is not a problem when we think about the United States. When we think about the United States, particularly in this era, we're looking at a country that is pulling in several different directions at the same time. Just as with the United States, we now increasingly look on an issue-to-issue basis rather than with one single formula. That flexibility that is going to come by engagement in the broadest sense of the word rather than in the way we pursued in the past, I think that's the track we're going to have to go forward on because of the new power dynamics in play.

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

Could you comment further on how we can work together with China in peacekeeping, the Arctic and the environment?

[Phil Calvert]

Each of those need special attention. I would raise one in particular, which is peacekeeping. It's a perfect example of the choices we make. For some, working with China on peacekeeping is co-operating with a future enemy and their activities. China is now the largest player in international peacekeeping of the P5 countries.

I take a different view. I think that on peacekeeping, Canadian experience and Chinese capabilities, there are several areas where we can co-operate and where the world urgently needs an enhanced peacekeeping capability.

To use that as an example, there are the case studies, some of which your committee might be willing to take on, where we do have some commonality of interest, recognizing there are risks we have to take account of during that process. We could give an itemized list if you wish. We've been working on a dozen or 15 different areas where we think there are special chances for co-operation that might benefit both of us, but also the world that we'd like to see.

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

It would be helpful if you could send that.

Why do you think they have the largest peacekeeping force or that they are represented so strongly around the world? Does it have anything to do with the belt and road initiative?

[Prof. Paul Evans]

I think China's use of its military is complicated. It is increasingly having its forces based in other countries, but only a small number. The United States has over 400 foreign military bases. China has—depending on how you count them—two or three or four.

There are mixed motives in what China is doing. The argument is that, because they have the resources, they have the troops that they're willing to put in and they have a marvellous training system that has been internationally supported, we can try to accentuate the positive with them, with eyes open, for other motives that we have to try to discourage in the longer term as well.

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

Thank you.

I have 30 seconds. I don't know if this can be answered in 30 seconds, but it's directed to all the panellists.

China has conveyed its appreciation to the government's response regarding the coronavirus emergency. How likely is it that this will contribute to a thaw in the Canada-China relations? Is there—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

We have time for a one-word answer from each member. You want to say “very” or “not at all”.

Mr. Burton.

[Dr. Charles Burton]

Definitely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Calvert.

[Phil Calvert]

Minimal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Evans.

[Prof. Paul Evans]

I think the coronavirus can be a significant plus or a significant negative in our relationship with China.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

Ms. Alleslev, you have five minutes.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

This has been incredible in moving the discussion. What I've heard, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that overall our current approach is not serving us in the best way possible, that there is a sense of urgency to address that lack of, or weakness in, our current approach, and that some of the suggestions are around the benefit that Canada has as a middle power in being able to rely on other like-minded countries, either in the region or in the broader western world, or simply within our own country, to have a single voice and find a way to re-establish the strength of international institutions to be able to protect and preserve middle powers in a world where we're seeing the rise of great powers.

What I would like to hear from all of you, from your perspective, is what specific actions we can take to engage and strengthen those collective, coordinated approaches with other like-minded countries who find themselves in similar situations and even within our own country.

Mr. Burton.

[Dr. Charles Burton]

It would be great if Canada took the initiative, as we've taken most recently with the conference on North Korea and the land mines. Canada has a history of coordinating with like-minded powers to achieve goods for the global community. I think we also need to strengthen our capacity to engage with the Chinese regime. Under Ambassador Gotlieb, we changed the way we engaged in Washington, from beyond the State Department into Congress, into local legislatures and all the areas of power in the United States. In China we're falling very far behind in our capacity to engage with the people who count inside China and who are involved in the policy-making process that is affecting us so badly. I would certainly encourage that.

The other thing is that we keep talking about China, but we're really talking about the current government of China under Xi Jinping. I think that will not last forever. We shouldn't be feeling that there's a destiny here of the end of liberal democracy in global affairs. We could be engaging agents of change within China and supporting people we identify in China as doing good. We've done this before with human rights' dialogues and civil society programs, and senior judges' training. On my two postings as a diplomat in China, I was very much involved in those. All of those initiatives failed, but I don't think we ought to give up on the idea of democracy in China.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Evans.

[Prof. Paul Evans]

I think we're facing a double challenge: a China challenge and an America challenge. In building or rebuilding an international order, we're going to have to work with both of those countries as best we can, for example, by getting them into some of the new multilateral trade organizations. It won't work globally, but the trans-Pacific partnership should have accession clauses where we could imagine both China and the United States, when they are willing and able, to come into them.

I would say, secondly, that where we can try to work together as middle powers is, with special reverence to here in Southeast Asia, through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The idea of these—

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you. I want to make sure that I give Mr. Calvert an opportunity, too.

Considering it was a very significant emphasis of your opening remarks, what action can we take, Mr. Calvert?

[Phil Calvert]

First of all, we have specific issues. This has to be an issue-by-issue sort of decision, focusing on choosing. For example, with respect to the two Michaels, there are a number of countries, as I mentioned, that have had hostages taken. Collectively they can get together and say, “Okay, the next time a citizen is taken from one of our countries we will have a common response to this.” We can pull people together who have common interests in other areas as well. That's what our diplomats do.

I also think that, building on what Professor Burton says, we have a lot of trade commissioners in China but we don't have an adequate representation of officers in our embassies who do political and advocacy work. There are a lot more resources that could be put in that direction. Making more connections with the party system, with local governments and everything is where we can find ways to advance our interests and to try to influence the government.

I want to say one more thing—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Calvert, I'm sorry. We haven't time. We're over time a bit there.

Ms. Zann.

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

Thank you very much.

Good day, gentlemen, whatever time zone you happen to be in.

I have three questions, one for each of you, so keep that in mind. I'm going to start with Mr. Burton.

Mr. Burton, what do you think would be the concrete consequences of a very tough policy response on Canada-China relations going forward to Chinese behaviours we disagree with?

[Dr. Charles Burton]

I'm fairly confident that because the relationship between Canada and China is so asymmetrical in favour of China, we would not get this negative response. I think we would gain respect from China. They would expect us to not simply be passive in response to the successive outrages that they have committed against the rules-based global order, and diplomacy and trade.

I really think, for example, that we should crack down on the activities of agents of the Chinese state in Canada, on money laundering in B.C., which affects some people connected to the senior leadership of the regime—that's why, I think, they protect Ms. Meng so carefully—and other actions such as inspecting shipments from China strictly to stop this fentanyl scourge from coming into our country. There are a lot of things we could do.

Frankly, I understand that we can't predict that regime and they don't seem to behave in a way that is fair or reciprocal, as one would expect in global relations. I'm not that worried that if we show some backbone, we will suffer disastrous consequences for our economy and relations, but it's a continuing story.