Evidence of meeting #3 for Canada-China Relations in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was taiwan.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:25 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Ms. Calverley, you have up to five minutes for your statement.
8:25 p.m.
Aileen Calverley Co-founder and Trustee, Hong Kong Watch
Thank you, Mr. Chair
Thank you, members, for the opportunity to testify before this committee.
Far too often, the relationship between Canada and the PRC is framed through the narrow lens of trade and business. The public is told that China is too much of an economic opportunity for us to risk alienating the Chinese government by raising human rights, yet Canadian trade with China in 2021 accounted for just over 4.6% of our total exports.
Similarly, what is often ignored in this debate is that much of the goods we export to China are the raw materials that its economy relies on. For example, even at the height of its trade war with Australia, the PRC continues to import substantial amounts of iron ore it cannot source elsewhere. This reflects the limited ability of the PRC to put countries with export-led economies in what it calls the “economic freezer”.
Hong Kong Watch’s ESG report—our new research—shows that the passive investment strategies pursued by both the leading Canadian federal and provincial pension funds, as well as university endowment funds, have failed to properly factor in human rights considerations when investing in portfolios for our Canadian pensions. The holding of emerging market funds includes Chinese companies linked to forced labour. I hope this is an area that this committee can investigate further in a separate inquiry.
Canada continues to have a special interest in the human rights situation in Hong Kong, not least because of the 300,000 Canadians who have made Hong Kong their home and the 500,000 Hong Kong Canadians who continue to worry about the safety of their families and friends. The human rights situation in Hong Kong has been deteriorating rapidly since the introduction of the national security law in 2020. Beijing continues its crackdown on the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.
The 90-year-old Cardinal Joseph Zen, along with five other trustees, including Canadian Denise Ho of the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund, stood trial a week ago. Forty-seven pro-democracy Hong Kongers are charged under the national security law simply because they joined a primary election. Five speech therapists who published a children's book series called the “Sheep Village” were recently convicted of sedition.
With the situation on the ground continuing to deteriorate by the day, Hong Kongers are looking for a way out of the city, not only to preserve their own safety and security but to seek a better future for their families. The Hong Kong pathway open work permit scheme announced by Canada two years ago is a start, but there are many gaps that need to be addressed.
For example, the five-year restriction poses a barrier to many Hong Kongers, even for recent graduates who meet the requirement at the time of application. By the time their work permit is received and the hours of work requirement is fulfilled, they might already have fallen out of eligibility to apply for permanent residency under stream B of the scheme.
Canada has set the immigration target of over 400,000 immigrants per year in the coming few years. Expanding and extending the Hong Kong pathway can help meet this target. The founder of the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai, is in custody. His arrest and detention is the evidence of the CCP's crackdown on press freedom in the city. According to the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the press freedom index is at a record low. The Hong Kong government is also now looking to enact a “fake news” law, under which the government can be empowered to issue a decree for false information to be removed.
Many frontline human rights defenders—such as journalists, pro-democracy activists, lawmakers and medical professionals—are currently not covered by Canada's open work permit scheme. We recommend that the government create a human rights defender category to address this gap, similar to the current policy for Ukraine.
Even Hong Kongers who are able to immigrate to Canada are not free from the far-reaching hand of the CCP regime. Chinese police are setting up offices in Canada where dissidents continue to be harassed and intimidated by agents acting on behalf of the CCP. The threat is not faced by Hong Kongers alone, but also by Uighurs, Tibetans and Chinese dissidents alike. The CCP's United Front overseas department has one of the most sophisticated foreign interference operations in Canada, which is discussed at length in China Unbound by Joanna Chiu and in Hidden Hand by Clive Hamilton.
This operation is not only designed to keep Chinese citizens, Hong Kongers, Tibetans and other activists under close supervision and, in some instances, used to target and intimidate them, but it also is used to actively interfere in Canadian politics.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Ms. Calverley, I think we'll call time now because we need to get into our questions. However, if you have further points to make, perhaps you can work them into some of the answers that you provide.
8:30 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Thank you very much.
8:30 p.m.
Co-founder and Trustee, Hong Kong Watch
Aileen Calverley
Yes, that's good. Thank you.
8:30 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Ms. Dancho, you have six minutes.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being with us and providing excellent testimony.
I have a few questions for Professor Houlden.
I appreciated very much the way that you laid out your opening remarks. It was great to understand. Having listened to a lot of opening remarks, I really appreciated how well you did that, so thank you.
8:30 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Thank you.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I want to get your expert opinion on a few of the agreements that Canada has not been invited to the table as an ally or as part of several alliances that have been undertaken in recent years in the Indo-Pacific, notably, the trilateral security pact between the U.S., U.K. and Australia, commonly known as AUKUS. Can you comment on whether Canada should be pursuing a seat at the table there?
8:30 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I'm in favour of Canada being a joiner. We're a member of more international organizations than almost any other state. However, there is a problem that emerges with Asia-Pacific, with the Pacific in general and even with the Indo-Pacific. With all due respect for our military, for which I have the highest respect—I went to our national defence college at one point—our Pacific forces are extremely modest. We lack even the legs or the means to get our ships readily to Asia without the help of our southern neighbour. A number of our ships are getting older. Our air force is not new. We're a minor player. I think that, as long as that remains true, it's hard for us to be taken as seriously or to be an active member of those organizations.
When it comes to trade, there are more substantive links. We have, obviously, huge people-to-people links because Asia is the number one source of our immigration, etc. The AUKUS arrangement between the U.K., Australia and the United States has a particular focus on defence equipment, which I don't think Canada seems ready to acquire. When you think about our submarines, we went that route once, but it was never finished. I'm a bit skeptical it would happen.
However, I do believe that we should be at more tables in Asia. We shouldn't assume, though, that it's simply a question of asking. Our attention to that region has been episodic. It's alive for a while, and then it dies off. The question will be, in Asian capitals—in my view—whether we are going to show up on a regular basis and whether we can be counted on. If we can generate a sustained effort to be an active part of that region despite the distances, that's a great thing.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Do you think those will be mostly domestic policies around the economy or foreign policies related to, say, the belt and road initiative or African investment? Where do you think his emphasis will be—domestic or foreign?
8:35 p.m.
Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto
I think mostly domestic. The big question is what President Xi is going to do about Taiwan, or is he going to do anything about Taiwan? I think that will come in the next five years, whether or not.... People have been debating forever whether China is going take Taiwan back by force. I think that remains an open question, and we will see increasing signs of that in the next five years, I believe.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Very good. Thank you.
Professor Houlden, I'm going back to you. You were talking about the U.S. and how relations with China are often triangulated with the United States. I'm wondering if you could briefly talk about the risks and the potential of either aligning closely with the U.S. or diverging far from it. I know that it's kind of a big question, but I just wonder what you might offer us in advice on that. We'll have to do more work on Canada-U.S.-China triangulation, but do you have any thoughts on that?
8:35 p.m.
Director Emeritus, China Institute, University of Alberta, As an Individual
That's a super important question.
Of course, that relationship has been negative, and it's getting worse. We're about to enter—it seems to be always the case—more intensive political campaigning in the United States. It won't end until 2024. I think you'll see both parties campaigning on anti-China stances; however, the trade continues. The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies are actively engaged in the China market. They do more trade now in China than they do with Canada, and our trade with the U.S. is huge.
Just to swivel back to your question on elite politics, my own view is that those answers we're going to see very soon are precooked in consultations. When you have a one-party system, the factions within the party become important. Those factions will not be vanquished completely by Xi. I compare Chinese elite politics to water polo. On the surface, it looks like people are passing the ball back and forth very nicely, but underneath the water there's a lot of kicking going on, and we just don't see that.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Ms. Ong, Ms. Calverley and Professor Houlden, thanks to all of you. That was fascinating input into the questions that we had tonight. Thank you for joining us and sharing your time with us.
I also want thank our clerk, the analysts, the translators, the support staff and especially the technicians. As we were proceeding with our business today, they were doing 12 rounds with technology back here. It wasn't easy.
I want to thank you very much for navigating through all of that.
We trust that you will have a very good week back home with your constituents. We will see you back here on October 18.
The meeting is adjourned.
8:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you.
The other thing, too, is this: Do you believe that Global Affairs and IRCC should work together to facilitate the departure of non-Canadian citizen family members of Canadian citizens? What would that look like, in your opinion?
8:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes, even more broadly, what other steps...? I think you outlined this particular strategy, but I think there are many other things we would like to see Global Affairs Canada and IRCC do together to make sure that people can come from Hong Kong to Canada. I think one of the problems that we have is that we need to listen to experts like you, so I just want to give you this opportunity for just a few more seconds.
October 4th, 2022 / 8:35 p.m.
Co-founder and Trustee, Hong Kong Watch
Thank you.
I think they should help those people who, for example, joined the pro-democracy movement. A lot of them were put into prison. Now they're out, but they're not eligible because they have criminal records. However, the record is only for illegal assembly, for example, but they were put into prison for three months so they're not able to come over.
Also, they need to get police certificates. This is something that our country needs to change, because those who move to the U.K. via the BNO scheme don't need to have police certificates. Over 10,000 Hong Kong protesters were arrested. Anyone who was arrested in the past needs to produce a police certificate, but all of them could not produce that.
I think this is very unfair. We say that this is Canada supporting democracy, supporting freedom and supporting Hong Kong, but all those people who fight for democracy, in fact, are the people who cannot come to Canada. I think that category needs to change. They need to give ways—
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Thank you, Ms. Calverley. Again, we've run out of time for your segment.
We have time for, actually, two more rounds of questions.
Mr. Hallan, I have you down next. Oh, we're going to Mr. Chong. All right. Then that will be followed by Mr. Oliphant.
You two gentlemen will wrap us up today.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to explore this issue of the impact on two-way trade in the event that Canada and other allies were ever to sanction China because of some geopolitical event that took place. We know that we roughly export about $25 billion to $30 billion a year to China, most of it primary products in agriculture and mining. We know that we import roughly $70 billion a year from China, mostly a wide range of products like electronics, toys, plastics, machinery, furniture, all the things that consumers in this country consume.
My question is this: Would the disruption be bigger on our imports to this country in terms of the economic impact because the exports are so commodity-based? In other words, because they are commodities, we can get rid of them one way or the other on Chicago or whatever other exchanges are available to sell commodity-based products. Is that a fair assumption to make about the impact on trade—that it would have more of an impact on the imports from China to Canada rather than on the exports of Canada to China?