Canada-China Relations Committee on May 3rd, 2021

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

Point taken. I did listen quite intently to your whole testimony, of course, but I was particularly interested when you talked about the need for liberal democracies to ensure that policies they take towards China do not have the impact of stoking anti-Chinese sentiment in their own societies. We've heard from other witnesses in previous meetings about the importance of that.

This is a regime that is markedly different from previous Chinese regimes. The administration under President Xi, according to many.... Our Parliament recognized it and the British Parliament has recently moved in the direction, and of course I'm speaking about the genocide of the Uighur minority. It is not just politicians who have put their opinion forward; it's leading observers of international law and human rights scholars—Irwin Cotler, for example.

With all that in mind, how can we, on the one hand, stand up as a country to China in a constructive way, in a way that's meaningful, but on the other hand avoid doing what you're cautioning against, a sort of narrow-minded approach that leads to hate sentiment and racism and limits the discussion to zero-sum outcomes, if I understand your position correctly? What would be your counsel on that?

If there's time, I'll ask the same question to Professor Houlden

[Prof. Paul Evans]

Anti-China sentiment and anti-Chinese racism are not the same thing, but they sometimes hold hands. The danger is that extreme anti-China statements are the bellows that can fan embers.

I have Chinese colleagues who are terribly upset at a general portrayal of China as an adversary and of people connected to it as potential spies, as potential agents of influence. When we hit that part in our public discussion, we need to take a little bit of a break and calm down. We have to deal with a China that is extremely difficult, extremely challenging, but be surgical in the words we use.

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

Thank you very much.

Professor Houlden, do you have any thoughts on this same subject?

[Prof. Gordon Houlden]

I'm happy to add a couple of words.

I think there is that risk. I know that many of my Canadian friends of Chinese heritage are very uncomfortable now with the tone of the dialogue. It's reflected in its crudest manner sometimes in street incidents of racism, graffiti and that sort of thing.

I think an element of maturity is needed in Parliament, among academics and in the media to provide an element of leadership such that one can, as suggested, criticize policies of the Government of China without criticizing the 20% of the world that is Chinese. It's too easy to slip into a demonization factor that might be appropriate if we were at war, but we're not at war.

We have immigrants arriving from that country. Almost two million of our fellow citizens have Chinese heritage. A certain delicacy in speech is necessary, and leadership from all—from universities, from the media and from Parliament—is needed in the language used, so as to not feed crude racism.

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

I thank you very much for that. I don't, unfortunately, have time for another question, but I want to thank you in particular because you've presented us with a nuanced view and one that I hope all colleagues around the table take very seriously. I think they will.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Bergeron, we now go to you for six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the witnesses' apropos comments about the important distinction between criticizing the policies of the People's Republic of China and expressing anti-Chinese sentiments. They are two completely different things.

Some of the security experts the committee has heard from thus far would probably say you are speaking fairly candidly about the People's Republic of China. You warned against ruffling China's feathers and exacerbating tensions, and yet, that is precisely what Chinese authorities seem to be doing: exacerbating tensions with Canada.

Many argue that Canada's prevarication, appeasement and attempts to mollify Chinese authorities have not worked, so it's time to stand up to China, not just as a country, on our own, but also alongside other countries.

What do you say to the idea that, despite Canada's attempts to take a nuanced and co-operative approach with Chinese authorities, the efforts have been futile? China has gotten tough with Canada regardless.

[Prof. Paul Evans]

Well, let me, if I may, respond first.

The fundamental problem we're wrestling with, which you hinted at, is in essence the “three Ms” problem: Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor and Madam Meng. The inextricable nature of that problem has brought out the worst in elements of Chinese behaviour: coercive economic diplomacy and hostage diplomacy.

From their perspective, we are playing a similar game. As we express our anger and as we try to find friends who want to support us, the real objective is to find a way to unravel this problem. It is going to ultimately demand a diplomatic solution to a problem, whereby we don't count our friends on the basis of who stands up to criticize China but on the basis of who helps us find some useful pathways to unravelling the Madam Meng case.

There, I think primarily the challenge is in our relationship with the United States.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Would you care to comment, Mr. Houlden?

[Prof. Gordon Houlden]

I'd like to add a couple of words.

I don't expect Chinese behaviour is going to change drastically for the better. Certainly, as Paul hints, when the three Ms are dealt with, we can return, I would hope, to a somewhat more normal relationship, with exchanges, high-level visits and dialogue.

The physics of power, however, and the nature of Xi Jinping and of the top echelons of the Communist Party are such that they are prepared, more than in the past, to use that power and that Deng Xiaoping maxim to “hide your strength, bide your time”.

I would argue that China's time has arrived, in their eyes, and they are prepared to be somewhat more aggressive, to throw their weight around and to act like a great power—even the superpower-in-waiting that they are. That, I fear, is the reality.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Houlden, in February, the U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center identified the collection of data by the Beijing Genomics Institute as an issue of concern. That is all the more concerning since we know the Chinese government collects DNA data for national security reasons.

Since the University of Alberta is working with the Beijing Genomics Institute, would you describe the situation as concerning, or have the appropriate measures been taken to keep that kind of thing from happening?

[Prof. Gordon Houlden]

These are going to be complex technical issues. Clearly, we do not want to provide Chinese databases or Chinese authorities with any personal information that could be used against either Canada or their own citizens, but there is space, I believe, for scientific collaboration that does not involve a security risk.

I take what the U.S. security authorities say very seriously, but I'd argue so should CSIS, and I'm sure they do, and we need to. This is again perhaps getting back to that question of comments from our security authorities in the Government of Canada to universities about where they may see danger. Quite frankly, university professors and even university administrators will not necessarily understand the risk of a particular subject in detail. There need to be highly technical discussions in some cases. Scientists who are pursuing pure science may not be aware of some of the potential consequences of what they're doing. That dialogue must be a regular one.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Now we'll go to Mr. Harris for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to both you gentlemen for coming to join us this evening on a most interesting topic.

Professor Evans, before you mentioned Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, I was going to say that there were two names that answer the question as to why there is so much righteous anger at China for its behaviour, because that anger is understandable. Two people are taken, clearly in retribution, who in Canada would be treated legally in relation to a treaty on extradition and under the law, as opposed to being arbitrarily detained. It has led to an awful lot of further examination, of course, and I agree with you that in many cases and for many individuals it has gone too far in terms of hatred and anti-Asian prejudice and acts, and that's deplorable as well.

We're talking about academics here. I wanted to raise a question that bedevils me to some extent and has to do with the Confucius Institutes. They began around 2004 or thereabouts. They were recognized fairly early as being a direct instrument of the Chinese Communist Party operating internationally. In 2014, the CAUT, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, of which I'm sure you're probably members, called upon the universities to not have anything to do with the Confucius Institutes, citing the closing of the Confucius Institute in Sherbrooke, Quebec. The University of Manitoba voted against hosting them out of concerns over political censorship. McMaster cancelled its contracts following an instructor's human rights complaint, etc., and yet they persist to this day in some places. Academic freedom, of course, was the big issue, and is a big issue in academia, persisting to this very day as an extremely important facet of university life.

Why have they persisted? If it's about Chinese language training and culture, as someone pointed out—I think Professor Houlden—we have two million Canadians of Chinese descent. We have 140,000 students here. We can learn about or teach Chinese languages and culture from the people we have. Why is that not happening, and why are universities relying on the Confucius Institutes?

[Prof. Paul Evans]

Mr. Harris, the universities aren't relying on Confucius Institutes, although some universities that don't have the resources to fund language training have used them.

At the University of British Columbia, we decided not to partner with the Confucius Institutes. This was partly because they were, as we saw, too connected to the propaganda side of the Chinese government, but it was also because we teach Chinese language in a different way.

That said, most of the studies done on the Confucius Institutes are in the United States, and most of those studies suggest that what the Confucius Institutes actually do is pretty innocuous . They don't influence people's political views.

One can dislike the Confucius Institutes. I think what we should do for those institutions that want to have them is provide complete transparency. Go in, investigate, look. There's a whole side to Han nationalism that plays through in their curriculum. We'd have to look at that carefully, but in and of themselves, they are not an evil. They are not an outreach location for deep subversion. They're just, I think, a foolishly considered Chinese way of trying to get the world to learn Chinese language and culture.

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

Professor Houlden, do you have any views that are separate from that?

[Prof. Gordon Houlden]

As I see it, the problem is funding. I know it sounds like, “Yes we have Chinese Canadians who can teach Chinese”, although not all of them can. It's who funds it.

In the United States, what is the number one funder of Chinese language? It's the U.S. Department of Defense. The United States understands that China is a comprehensive competitor to the United States and that they need thousands—ideally tens of thousands—of fluent Chinese speakers.

We in Canada have not mustered the same effort. Public school boards have not done the same thing. For that reason, I would say more money for Chinese language is needed from governments.

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

Thank you.

I see the chair giving me the one-minute finger here.

I'll put the question out there and I think part of it has been answered. We hear the University of Alberta, for example, declining to discuss its research activities with China other than to say it has received no directives from the federal government to stop its engagement with Chinese institutions. Meanwhile, CSIS says all the time that they're engaging academia in guidance and guidelines and all of that. There seems to be a disconnect in that story.

[Prof. Paul Evans]

If I were to give a one-sentence answer, it would be that the universities need to be more transparent to the media and to our politicians about what they are doing with China, whether that's about the Confucius Institutes or funding from Huawei.

“Head in the sand” is not the right way to convince Canadians that we are doing something that is in all of our interests and that we're aware of the risks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much. I think I'll refer to that as the one-minute signal, Mr. Harris, if you don't mind.

We'll go on to the second round now. We have Mr. Williamson for five minutes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you very much. This is very interesting. You certainly sparked a good conversation.

As a point of protocol, is it Professor Houlden or Mr. Houlden?

[Prof. Gordon Houlden]

It's both.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

That's what I thought, Professor Houlden. Thank you. You've earned the title, so I like to use it.

Could I ask you a question? Off the top you said you had looked at the raw numbers. Is it your belief, given the raw numbers in China—the number of scientists and research grads who are coming through—that they're going to out-think and out-produce us because of the size?

This is my question. What weight do you give to a free society to actually trigger research and innovation? If you say there's a level playing field, I would disagree with you, but I want to make sure I understood your comments.

[Prof. Gordon Houlden]

We're only going to know the answer to that question in the fullness of time. I do believe that free societies and free universities have an advantage with creativity. We see this especially in Chinese university-level social sciences, where they're hopelessly backward because of censorship. It's on the science side that they spend their money, and they've been leaping ahead.

Size has a quality of its own. If the Chinese now graduate eight times as many STEM graduates, that will accrue over time and be tremendously important. China's closing in on the United States for the largest economy. It's conceivable that by 2050, or even before, the Chinese economy could be twice the size.

That is a challenge to the west. Acting collectively, I think our free institutions could be their match. China will change over time, but we won't have a good answer to your question until we see the results, unfortunately.