Canada-China Relations Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2020

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That's your inference. What I'm saying is that the policy when it comes.... But, Mr. Chong, what I'm saying is not unique to Canada. Just look at our European partners.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

No, no, I understand that.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Everyone is evolving alike. For example, the national security law in Hong Kong is something that happened, so Canada, like-minded, we're all evolving in light of that. We want to work together. We want to coordinate together. I think that's in the interests of Canada.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I understand that, Minister. Many of us are waiting with bated breath for this new framework, so we're wondering whether or not it's going to be formally released, but if you're not prepared to answer that, I respect that.

Minister, as you know, China imposed a draconian new national security law in Hong Kong in violation of an international treaty, the 1984 joint declaration, and it recently turfed four duly elected legislators from the legislative council of Hong Kong. As a result, the United States has imposed Magnitsky-type sanctions on the officials responsible, and the United Kingdom has announced it's considering the imposition of those sanctions.

On July 8, you indicated in the House of Commons that Magnitsky sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for this draconian new national security law were on the table for consideration. The next day, a government source—we don't know who, but a government source—told Reuters that was off the table. Which of the two positions is it? Are Magnitsky sanctions still under consideration or not?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would say to Mr. Chong that we are always considering various issues with our allies.

I think, as you said, Mr. Chong, the smart way to impose sanctions is to go with a core group of countries to have impact. Therefore, that's the principle that I'm applying.

What I said, and what I think you're referring to, is that obviously when we're working with colleagues, allies and the Five Eyes, we're looking at a number of measures. You've seen, for example, on immigration, that our immigration measures are complementary with the United Kingdom. That's the smart way to approach when it comes to issues like, for example, the national security law in Hong Kong—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I appreciate that.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

—so we will continue to consult, and we will obviously, to go back to your earlier point—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you.

I take from that that sanctions are still possibly on the table.

The last question I'd like to ask you tonight goes back to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. There's something somewhat contradictory, at least to me, in your opening remarks on the government's continued participation.

In your opening remarks, you said, “China has signed...agreements with 138 countries to build infrastructure that will connect it to developing countries. China's banks have already provided loans worth over $461 billion, raising many concerns over debt sustainability, transparency and international standards on labour and the environment.”

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is an integral part of the belt and road initiative, and so it seems to me contradictory, on the one hand, to be calling out China for its debt diplomacy and, on the other hand, to be continuing Canada's participation in that development bank. Could you maybe tell us how that's consistent?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Just for the record, I missed part of your question, Mr. Chong, and I do apologize. I just got the end, but I won't ask you to repeat because I know time is precious.

What I was stating before in my opening remarks were facts. What I referred to—the number of countries that you mentioned on infrastructure—was in the context of the belt and road initiative.

When it comes to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, what I was saying is that the purpose of that bank is to help the poorest countries in Asia-Pacific and for Canada to be part of that to alleviate social and economic hardship that people are living through. That's why Canada is part of that.

I think those are two distinct topics, I would say, and certainly I think Canadians would understand that Canada has a role to play when it comes to helping the poorest countries in Asia-Pacific.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here tonight.

If I understand you correctly, you sketched out a foreign policy approach to China, and you called it a smart policy approach. That would involve Canada coalescing or continuing to coalesce with like-minded allies on the basis of shared values. It would also involve, if I understood you correctly, Canada accepting China as it is, not as we wish it to be. If that's a fair interpretation, please let me know. If it's not, also please let me know.

My question to you is this: To what extent is Canada involved in leading that effort among like-minded countries to bring countries together?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Fragiskatos, I think your comment is fair in the sense that what I was trying to do at the beginning of my remarks, and I think Mr. Chong alluded to that, was just to state facts. Those are facts that people can find in the public domain. They are facts with respect to China.

When it comes to how you respond to some of these challenges that I've outlined when it comes to the defence of human rights.... I think a number of colleagues have talked about a number of other issues with respect to debt and with respect to the belt and road initiative and other initiatives.

What I've been saying all along, and for Canadians who are watching, the takeaway is that what we need to do is for liberal democracies and a group of countries to organize together to be able to face some of these challenges together, because we understand that these challenges are bigger and they cannot be dealt with on a bilateral basis. They have to be dealt with on a multilateral level.

I think Mr. Chong was mentioning Hong Kong. You've seen Canada was the first country in the world—not in the Five Eyes, but in the world—to suspend the extradition treaty. I wish colleagues had the same opportunities to talk to my counterparts in the world. Many calls I received said, “That's a very good idea; we're going to do it as well.”

This is what allies do together. We work together, and we coordinate together. We did that on the immigration measure. We're doing that when it comes to the human rights issue that I'm sure is at the forefront of people's minds when it comes to the Uighurs and Hong Kong.

I think the policy response is to work together, and Canada has been at the centre of these discussions to make sure that we can face some of these challenges together.

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

Thank you very much.

For the 300,000 Canadians in Hong Kong, do you have a message for those folks? Does Canada have an evacuation plan?

We've been told there's a committee and that one has been worked on, but I wanted to ask you specifically as minister what the status of that plan might be, seeing as Hong Kong remains tremendously unstable and could require evacuation.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Obviously, they're welcome to come back home if they want. We're talking about Canadian citizens who have a constitutional right to come back to Canada. Therefore, I think it is appropriate and prudent for our mission to prepare a number of contingency plans. That's why we have been at the forefront of the response with the United Kingdom and other allies. We have a vested interest in the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. We all know that Hong Kong has become a global trading centre and a global financial centre. This was underpinned because people enjoy great freedom and liberties.

What we're saying to China—not only Canada, but also a number of other countries—is that we're concerned. We're concerned that the imposition of national security and the way it was done is now eroding the very fundamental principles that have made Hong Kong what it is today. We will continue to play an active role when it comes to Hong Kong.

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

Thank you very much.

I have one last question.

Some have suggested—and I think that there's a great deal of fairness to this suggestion—that Canada has been caught between a Trump administration that has a particular approach to China and a Chinese regime that has a particular approach to the United States. With the incoming Biden administration, do you see the potential opening of a new path, in terms of U.S.-China relations, that could ease pressures on the Canada-China relationship, certainly from the Canadian perspective?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Obviously, my job is to defend Canadian interests and to defend our interests at every opportunity.

Certainly, we will be engaging as we've done with the current administration. Let's be clear: We've been engaging with them through the Five Eyes partnership on a number of initiatives, and I'm sure we will continue to do so.

As Mr. Harris said before, what we need to do is to broaden the core group of countries that are going to speak up on issues. Certainly, Canada will continue to engage when it comes to issues regarding China.

As I said, in some places we'll challenge, and in other places I think it would be in our best interest to co-operate. I can think of climate change, where the easier path is, obviously, to engage China. Certainly, we will be discussing this with our partners and colleagues. I think that's the smart way to do foreign policy when it comes to facing some of these challenges with China.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Bergeron, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you once again for your generosity, for the time you are giving us and for the fact that you are staying with us until the end of our meeting today. We are very grateful to you.

As you know, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development agreed, after an in-depth study, that the treatment of the Uighurs, specifically, is, in practice, a genocide. Similarly, in the United States, elected officials in both parties have come to basically the same conclusion about the Uighurs, the Kazakhs, the Kyrgyz, and other Muslim minorities, to say nothing of the Falun Gong practitioners.

The American president-elect, Joe Biden, recently said this:

The most effective way to meet that challenge is to build a united front of U.S. allies and partners to confront China's abusive behaviours and human rights violations.

Earlier, you spoke about the necessity for Canada and the Western democracies—as we can call them—to present a common front so as not to be isolated from each other.

In that context, where are we in building that common front of Western democracies to face up to the People's Republic of China?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you for asking that timely question, Mr. Bergeron.

This is a subject that always comes up whenever I am talking with my colleagues in the liberal democracies around the world, particularly those in Europe. We wonder how we can best organize ourselves and work together to address those challenges. A number of countries, including Canada, share the same values and the same principles and they are concerned by the same questions that you raised. We are certainly examining what we can do in the light of the new American administration.

To deal with those violations of human rights, whether it's about the Uighurs, about Tibet or about Hong Kong, the smart response is to work together, meaning that the liberal democracies must organize themselves to form a common front against those abuses. The issues are not bilateral, they are multilateral.

For example, when I am asked whether I have done anything regarding the Uighurs, my answer is yes. I have spoken to the representative of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, who can ask to have access to the territory to report to the international community what she has observed. The statement signed by 38 countries at the third meeting of the United Nations committee in New York is also encouraging. In a common statement, representatives from 38 countries expressed their concern, in quite strong terms, about the situation in Hong Kong and about the Uighurs.

That shows exactly what you have just said, Mr. Bergeron, that the international community or, at any rate, the community of liberal democracies, shares the same values and principles as Canada and they want to stand together to tackle those issues.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

It would be interesting to see if the United Nations Human Rights Committee representative will be authorized to go to China, to Xinjiang for example, to see what's going on there. All the more so since a number of countries are on the committee, and some are not particularly exemplary in that respect.

During your conversation with Mr. Harris, you mentioned that a number of countries have come out in favour of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. Has Canada done the same for other countries that have found themselves in a similar situation to date?

I'm thinking of Sweden, for instance, which saw one of its nationals arbitrarily detained by the Chinese authorities. Did Canada speak out in that particular case?

If we are to expect others to speak out when our fellow citizens are being arbitrarily detained, I imagine we must do the same in cases involving our allies.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You are absolutely right, Mr. Bergeron. However, I'm not at liberty to talk about that particular case.

Canada plays a leading role in the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. We will have more to say about the working group in the near future. In my view, it's certainly a key issue.

As you say, here too, the general desire to do better is there. We need to better structure and organize ourselves. You will be pleased to know that Canada is considering an initiative to do just that.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Minister, once again, you're making our mouths water when you say “in the near future”. Are you able to give us more details this time?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

We're working on it, because Canada is not the only one concerned about the arbitrary detention issue. That's why we made Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor's case a multilateral issue, although some might have preferred that it be bilateral. That's how we were able to bring their case to the fore.

The joint statement of the 21st EU-China Summit even mentions the two Canadians' case, and for good reason. It goes to show the extent to which Canada succeeded in showing that their case goes beyond Canada's borders and must be of interest to the entire world.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Minister.