Canada-China Relations Committee on Dec. 8th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Ambassador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

Now it's Mr. Harris for six minutes, please.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

If I can return, Mr. Barton, to the question that I raised regarding what I call the trade deal, it's actually the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. I perhaps confused you. This is the agreement that was signed with China in 2014, and it's been criticized and analyzed by experts to suggest that it was very one-sided in favour of China. There's plenty of secrecy about how it operates, and also it's something that can't be changed or that you can't get out of for over 30 years.

My question was whether or not you have encountered any discussions with Chinese officials or whether it's been brought to your attention that this is a significant protection for the Chinese state-owned enterprises or others seeking to invest in Canada that prevents Canada from changing the rules and gives opportunity for China to sue the Canadian government for any changes that might affect its profitability or investment. That's the agreement I'm talking about, and my question is whether that has been brought to your attention by Chinese officials in relation to any matter.

[Dominic Barton]

Thank you, honourable member, for the clarification.

Those issues have not been brought to my attention by the Chinese. The issues that they have brought to us—and they've brought them to us in Beijing and also in Ottawa—are around what the process is. Shawn Steil might want to comment on that. They feel that the way decisions are made is a bit of a black box. We know that a number of different agencies are involved in that, but what is the process for that? What's the mood in Canada for investment? We've been getting the questions more along those lines rather than on any specific act, if you will. It's the process and the mood for it that they are looking to.

I don't know if I'm getting at your—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I hear what you're saying. They obviously would want to understand that, because that's a place at which investments could be prevented and, in particular, takeovers, mergers or amalgamations could be interfered with. Once the investment is there, though, the protection is found in the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. My question was whether that's ever been brought to your attention by them as a protection for them, and you've answered no, so I understand that.

Let me raise another question that I think concerns a lot of Canadians. We've seen in the case of Robert Schellenberg the change of his sentence. Coincident with or shortly after the time frame in which Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor were arrested, his sentence was changed from a term of imprisonment to death. Since then, we have also had, of course, Mr. Fan Wei and two Canadians who, in August, were sentenced to death as well.

I know that the death penalty is used in China, perhaps more than in any other country. What efforts are being made by you as ambassador and by Canada to seek to commute the death sentences of all of the Canadians who are sentenced to death in China?

[Dominic Barton]

Mr. Chair, we make regular representation to the MFA to seek clemency. We are against the death penalty everywhere in the world. This is focused not just on China; it's for Canadian citizens, and we feel very strongly about it. We regularly mention specifically the names you have mentioned.

I have actually visited Robert Schellenberg on a number of occasions, and I would just say again that what he's going through and how he's handling things is quite remarkable. I can't meet everyone who is in that system, but I've met two on that side. We have regular consular access, and we have had access even...because they weren't national security cases before.

We raise it regularly and strongly. We also talk about this with other missions that are here too, because people are concerned about that. Australia is an example. There are also other countries that are concerned. We raise it regularly and quite forcefully.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you for doing that.

Many people in Canada are also opposed to the death penalty in principle as a moral and human rights issue. Is there anything that Canadians, whether they're members of Parliament or individuals, can do to advance that cause with Chinese officials? I know many, many years ago, AI and other organizations were promoting ending the death penalty. Is that something you would encourage those who feel strongly about it to write to Chinese officials to express their concern, in not only these cases but also others?

[Dominic Barton]

It very much is. I think it's very important to be consistent and loud about it, and also to say that this is not targeted at China but is what we believe more broadly, and we engage everywhere with it and that's what we want and what we expect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Ambassador. On behalf of all of my colleagues on the committee, I will say that we very much appreciate your getting up very early in the morning in Beijing to join us. We wish you a good morning. Thank you so much.

Now, Mr. Genuis, I believe you have a motion you'd like to move.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleagues and the ambassador as well.

I will read the motion. I think it is fairly self-explanatory in light of the context, so I won't take up the limited time we have for discussion defending it. I think the context and the importance of it are self-evident and that it fits into one of our existing upcoming plans.

The motion is as follows:

That, as part of its study on national security, the Committee examine the national security implications of the National Research Council’s COVID-19 vaccine collaboration with CanSino Biologics, and invite the following witnesses to appear during the week of December 14, 2020, provided that all parties agree to extend the ability of committees to meet in a hybrid format: a) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; b) Representatives from CanSino Biologics; c) David Vigneault, Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); d) Iain Stewart, President of the National Research Council; and any other witnesses the Committee deems necessary and report its findings to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I propose an amendment to the motion, Chair, in line three, after the word “appear”, to delete the words “during the week of December 14, 2020”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

If I may speak to that briefly, I have no objection to the study. We are undertaking a study of national security, and part of our ongoing study should be examining the implications of that collaboration. We're concerned about that.

However, I don't think we ought to violate the break that's coming up. In the non-hybrid world, it's unheard of to have committees meet once the House rises for the winter break. People head home to their constituencies. They do work. They prepare for events with their constituents and for the Christmas season or whatever season they celebrate. I don't think it's that urgent that we do that.

I would suggest that we not do that next week. I have no objections to the motion as such, but there's no urgency for us to deal with that next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you. Are there any comments or debate on Mr. Harris's proposed amendment?

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead on Mr. Harris's motion to amend.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

It's not a comment on Mr. Harris's motion. It is more a question for Mr. Genuis. Can I put it that way?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

We should deal with Mr. Harris's amendment first. I'm looking for debate on Mr. Harris's amendment, and then we should vote on that, then debate the main motion as amended or not, and then vote on that.

Mr. Genuis, do you have something on this?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm willing to accept the amendment if it is the price of consensus and if it facilitates our adoption of the rest of the motion. I would favour moving forward as quickly as we can on this, but I do understand Mr. Harris's argument. If that will get us to where we need to go, then we're happy to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

For procedure, I think it's fine to work on the amendment first, which I think is a good idea. The amendment is helpful, but I want to say that even if I vote for the amendment, that doesn't mean I would vote for the amended motion, because I think there would still need to be a substantive discussion about where that discussion should best take place and whether our committee is the best place or NSICOP is the best place—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

But you're not talking about the motion as amended.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Yes, the problem is, I want to make it clear. The mover of an amendment could be disappointed if we vote for his amendment or her amendment and then we don't vote for the amended motion. I want to say that yes, I think we could support the amendment to move on to the substantive motion. I don't want to get his hopes up that it means we actually like it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I left my mike on so I could laugh.